DocketNumber： Supreme Court Case No. 20SC585
Citation Numbers： 482 P.3d 422
Filed Date： 3/15/2021
Status： Precedential
Modified Date： 7/29/2024
<div data-spec-version="0.0.3dev" data-generated-on="2024-07-14"> <div class="generated-from-iceberg vlex-toc"> <link href="https://doc-stylesheets.vlex.com/ldml-xml.css" rel="stylesheet" type="text/css"></link> <div class="ldml-decision"><div class="ldml-decision"><div href="/vid/895606490" data-vids="895606490" class="ldml-header header ldml-header content__heading content__heading--depth1" data-content-heading-label="Header"><p class="ldml-metadata"><span class="ldml-cite"><b class="ldml-bold">482 P.3d 422
</b></span></p><p class="ldml-metadata"><b class="ldml-bold"><span class="ldml-party"><span class="ldml-name">Cindi MARKWELL</span>, <span class="ldml-role">Secretary of the Senate</span></span>; and <span class="ldml-party"><span class="ldml-name">Leroy M. Garcia, Jr.</span>, <span class="ldml-role">President of the Senate</span>, <span class="ldml-role">Petitioners</span></span>,</b></p><p class="ldml-metadata"><b class="ldml-bold">v.</b><b class="ldml-bold"><span class="ldml-party"><span class="ldml-name">John B. COOKE, Senator</span></span>; <span class="ldml-party"><span class="ldml-name">Robert S. Gardner, Senator</span></span>; and <span class="ldml-party"><span class="ldml-name">Chris Holbert, Senate Minority Leader</span>, <span class="ldml-role">Respondents</span></span>.</b></p><p class="ldml-metadata"><b class="ldml-bold">Supreme Court <span class="ldml-cite">Case No. 20SC585</span> </b></p><p class="ldml-metadata"><b class="ldml-bold"><span class="ldml-court">Supreme Court of Colorado</span>.</b></p><p class="ldml-metadata"><span class="ldml-date"><b class="ldml-bold">March 15, 2021</b></span></p></div><div class="ldml-counsel header ldml-header content__heading content__heading--depth1" data-content-heading-label="Counsel"><p data-paragraph-id="296" class="ldml-paragraph no-indent mt-2"><span data-paragraph-id="296" data-sentence-id="296" class="ldml-sentence">Attorneys for <span class="ldml-entity"><span class="ldml-role">Petitioners</span></span>: <span class="ldml-lawfirm">Recht Kornfeld, P.C.</span>, <span class="ldml-entity"><span class="ldml-lawyer">Mark G. Grueskin</span></span>, <span class="ldml-entity"><span class="ldml-lawyer">Marnie C. Adams</span></span>, Denver, Colorado</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="396" class="ldml-paragraph no-indent mt-2"><span data-paragraph-id="396" data-sentence-id="396" class="ldml-sentence">Attorneys for <span class="ldml-entity"><span class="ldml-role">Respondents</span></span>: <span class="ldml-lawfirm">Jackson Kelly, PLLC</span>, <span class="ldml-entity"><span class="ldml-lawyer">John S. Zakhem</span></span>, Denver, Colorado</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="476" class="ldml-paragraph no-indent mt-2"><span data-paragraph-id="476" data-sentence-id="476" class="ldml-sentence">Attorneys for <span class="ldml-lawyerrole">Amicus Curiae</span> <span class="ldml-role">Governor</span> <span class="ldml-entity">Jared Polis</span>: <span class="ldml-entity"><span class="ldml-lawyer">Philip J. Weiser</span></span>, <span class="ldml-entity">Attorney General</span>, <span class="ldml-entity"><span class="ldml-lawyer">Eric R. Olson</span></span>, Solicitor General, <span class="ldml-entity"><span class="ldml-lawyer">Grant T. Sullivan</span></span>, Assistant Solicitor General, <span class="ldml-entity"><span class="ldml-lawyer">Stephanie Lindquist Scoville</span></span>, First Assistant <span class="ldml-entity">Attorney General</span>, Denver, Colorado</span></p></div><h2 class="ldml-opinionheading"><span data-paragraph-id="724" class="ldml-paragraph "><span class="ldml-judgepanel"><span data-paragraph-id="724" data-sentence-id="724" class="ldml-sentence">En Banc</span></span></span></h2><div class="ldml-opinion"><p data-paragraph-id="731" class="ldml-paragraph no-indent mt-4"><span class="ldml-opinionauthor content__heading content__heading--depth1" data-content-heading-label="Opinion (SAMOUR, MÁRQUEZ, HOOD)"><span data-paragraph-id="731" data-sentence-id="731" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity">JUSTICE <span class="ldml-entity"><span class="ldml-judge">SAMOUR</span></span> <span class="ldml-opiniontype">delivered <span class="ldml-entity">the Opinion of <span class="ldml-entity">the Court</span></span></span></span>.</span></span></p><p data-paragraph-id="781" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="781" data-sentence-id="781" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_781"><span class="ldml-cite">¶1</span></a></span> Separation of powers among the legislative, executive, and judicial branches of government is the foundation on which our democracy rests and the fount from which our liberties flow.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="781" data-sentence-id="967" class="ldml-sentence">In urging ratification of the <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_967"><span class="ldml-cite">U.S. Constitution</span></a></span>, <span class="ldml-entity">James Madison</span> referred to separation of powers as <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"the sacred maxim of free government."</span></span> <span data-paragraph-id="781" data-sentence-id="1105" class="ldml-sentence">The <span class="ldml-referencechain"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_1105"><span class="ldml-refname">Federalist No. 47</span>, <span class="ldml-cite">at 308</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-entity">James Madison</span>)</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference"><span class="ldml-refname">Clinton Rossiter</span> <span class="ldml-cite">ed., 1961</span></a></span>)</span></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="781" data-sentence-id="1181" class="ldml-sentence">Indeed, it is difficult to fathom a more central precept to the spirit and genius of America.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="781" data-sentence-id="1275" class="ldml-sentence">Respect for this venerable principle requires <span class="ldml-entity">us</span> to afford a certain berth of deference to the decisions and judgments of our <span class="ldml-entity">sister</span> branches of government.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="781" data-sentence-id="1432" class="ldml-sentence">That deference, however, is not unlimited.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="781" data-sentence-id="1475" class="ldml-sentence">Where, as here, the interpretation of a provision in our state <span class="ldml-entity">constitution</span> is implicated, it is both our prerogative and responsibility to wade into the fray.</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="1634" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="1634" data-sentence-id="1634" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_1634"><span class="ldml-cite">¶2</span></a></span> The constitutional axis on which <span class="ldml-entity">this case</span> revolves is the reading requirement in <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_1634"><span class="ldml-cite">article V, section 22</span></a></span> : <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"Every <span class="ldml-entity">bill</span> shall be read by title when introduced, and at length on <span class="ldml-pagenumber" data-id="pagenumber_1812" data-page_type="bracketed_cite" data-rep="P.3d" data-vol="482" data-val="424"></span> two different days in each house; provided, however, any reading at length may be dispensed with upon unanimous consent of the members present."</span></span> <span data-paragraph-id="1634" data-sentence-id="1958" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_1634"><span class="ldml-cite">Colo. Const. art. V, § 22</span></a></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="1634" data-sentence-id="1985" class="ldml-sentence">The question before <span class="ldml-entity">us</span> is whether uploading <span class="ldml-entity">a bill</span> to multiple computers and using automated software to simultaneously give voice to different portions of <span class="ldml-entity">the bill</span> at a speed of about 650 words per minute complies with the reading requirement in <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_1985"><span class="ldml-cite">article V, section 22</span></a></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="1634" data-sentence-id="2255" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity">We</span> think not.</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="2268" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="2268" data-sentence-id="2268" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_2268"><span class="ldml-cite">¶3</span></a></span> There are unquestionably different ways by which <span class="ldml-entity">the legislature</span> may comply with the reading requirement.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="2268" data-sentence-id="2377" class="ldml-sentence">But the cacophony generated by the computers here isn't one of them.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="2268" data-sentence-id="2446" class="ldml-sentence">And while <span class="ldml-entity">we</span> have no business dictating the specifics of <i class="ldml-italics">how</i> <span class="ldml-entity">the legislature</span> might comply with the reading requirement, it <i class="ldml-italics">is</i> our prerogative and responsibility to declare that <span class="ldml-entity">the legislature</span> <i class="ldml-italics">did not</i> comply with that requirement in <span class="ldml-entity">this case</span>.</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="2689" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="2689" data-sentence-id="2689" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_2689"><span class="ldml-cite">¶4</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-entity">We</span> therefore agree with <span class="ldml-entity">the district court</span>'s determination that the unintelligible sounds produced by the computers did not fulfill the reading requirement.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="2689" data-sentence-id="2849" class="ldml-sentence">But <span class="ldml-entity">we</span> affirm in part and reverse in part because <span class="ldml-entity">we</span> conclude that it was not within <span class="ldml-entity">the district court</span>'s domain to dictate the <i class="ldml-italics">form or manner</i> by which <span class="ldml-entity">the legislature</span> may comply with the reading requirement.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="2689" data-sentence-id="3058" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-quotation quote">"<span class="ldml-parenthetical">[I]</span>n our constitutional system the commitment to the separation of powers is too fundamental for <span class="ldml-entity">us</span> to pre-empt congressional action by judicially decreeing what accords with common sense and the public weal."</span></span> <span data-paragraph-id="2689" data-sentence-id="3269" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-referencechain"><span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/889493911" data-vids="889493911" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_3058"><span class="ldml-refname"><i class="ldml-italics">Tenn. Valley Auth. v. Hill</i></span> , <span class="ldml-cite">437 U.S. 153
, 195</span>, <span class="ldml-cite">98 S.Ct. 2279
</span>, <span class="ldml-cite">57 L.Ed.2d 117
</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-date">1978</span>)</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-referencenote">internal quotation marks omitted</span>)</span></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="2689" data-sentence-id="3390" class="ldml-sentence">By prescribing <i class="ldml-italics">how</i> <span class="ldml-entity">the legislature</span> must comply with the reading requirement, <span class="ldml-entity">the district court</span> trespassed upon the separation-of-powers tenet so essential to our constitutional system of government.</span></p><div class="ldml-section"><section class="ldml-heading content__heading content__heading--depth1" data-ordinal_end="1" data-ordinal_start="1" data-format="upper_case_roman_numeral" data-types="background" data-specifier="I" data-confidences="very_high" data-id="heading_3589" data-content-heading-label="I. Facts and Procedural History" data-parsed="true" data-value="I. Facts and Procedural History" id="heading_3589"><span data-paragraph-id="3589" class="ldml-paragraph "><b class="ldml-bold"><span data-paragraph-id="3589" data-sentence-id="3589" class="ldml-sentence">I.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="3589" data-sentence-id="3592" class="ldml-sentence">Facts and Procedural History</span></b></span></section><p data-paragraph-id="3620" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="3620" data-sentence-id="3620" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_3620"><span class="ldml-cite">¶5</span></a></span> In late <span class="ldml-entity">February 2019</span>, House <span class="ldml-entity">Bill</span> 19-1172 <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-quotation quote">"HB 1172"</span>)</span>—a 2,023-page recodification of <span class="ldml-referencechain"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_3620"><span class="ldml-cite">Title 12 of the Colorado Revised Statutes</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-quotation quote">"Professions and Occupations"</span>)</span></span>—passed the Colorado House of Representatives.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="3620" data-sentence-id="3828" class="ldml-sentence">It was then introduced in the Colorado Senate and assigned to the <span class="ldml-entity">Senate Committee on the Judiciary</span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="3620" data-sentence-id="3929" class="ldml-sentence">On <span class="ldml-entity">March 4, 2019</span>, after receiving unanimous approval in that committee, <span class="ldml-entity">the bill</span> was referred for consideration by the full Senate.</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="4060" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="4060" data-sentence-id="4060" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_4060"><span class="ldml-cite">¶6</span></a></span> The events that sparked this litigation occurred on <span class="ldml-entity">March 11, 2019</span>, when <span class="ldml-entity">the bill</span> was introduced in the Senate for its second reading.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="4060" data-sentence-id="4198" class="ldml-sentence">That morning, a member of the Senate asked for unanimous consent to waive the reading of <span class="ldml-entity">the bill</span> at length.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="4060" data-sentence-id="4307" class="ldml-sentence">Pursuant to <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_4307"><span class="ldml-cite">article V, section 22 of the Colorado Constitution</span></a></span>, Senator <span class="ldml-entity">John B. Cooke</span> requested that <span class="ldml-entity">the bill</span> be read at length.<a href="#note-fr1" class="ldml-noteanchor" id="note-ref-fr1">1</a></span> <span data-paragraph-id="4060" data-sentence-id="4436" class="ldml-sentence">Because there wasn't unanimous consent to dispense with an at-length reading of <span class="ldml-entity">the bill</span>, <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_4436"><span class="ldml-cite">article V, section 22</span></a></span> required that <span class="ldml-entity">the bill</span> be read in full.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="4060" data-sentence-id="4588" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_4436"><span class="ldml-cite">Colo. Const. art. V, § 22</span></a></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="4060" data-sentence-id="4615" class="ldml-sentence">A pair of Senate staffers duly began reading <span class="ldml-entity">the bill</span> aloud, taking turns reading at a quick, but intelligible pace.<a href="#note-fr2" class="ldml-noteanchor" id="note-ref-fr2">2</a></span> <span data-paragraph-id="4060" data-sentence-id="4732" class="ldml-sentence">This continued until the staffers were instructed to stop, approximately three and a half hours after <span class="ldml-entity">they</span> began reading <span class="ldml-entity">the bill</span>.</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="4862" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="4862" data-sentence-id="4862" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_4862"><span class="ldml-cite">¶7</span></a></span> The Senate Secretary, <span class="ldml-entity">Cindi Markwell</span>, then directed Senate staff to upload HB 1172 to multiple computers and to use automated software to recite different portions of <span class="ldml-entity">the bill</span> simultaneously at the maximum rate of about 650 words per minute.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="4862" data-sentence-id="5107" class="ldml-sentence">It is undisputed that four to six computers were then simultaneously used, each going over a different part of <span class="ldml-entity">the bill</span>, and that, together, <span class="ldml-entity">they</span> created a babel of sounds.<a href="#note-fr3" class="ldml-noteanchor" id="note-ref-fr3">3</a></span> </p><p data-paragraph-id="5280" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="5280" data-sentence-id="5280" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_5280"><span class="ldml-cite">¶8</span></a></span> Through their staff, Senators Cooke and <span class="ldml-entity">Robert S. Gardner</span> objected to this procedure <span class="ldml-pagenumber" data-id="pagenumber_5368" data-page_type="bracketed_cite" data-rep="P.3d" data-vol="482" data-val="425"></span> and asked the Senate Secretary to slow down the computers.<a href="#note-fr4" class="ldml-noteanchor" id="note-ref-fr4">4</a></span> <span data-paragraph-id="5280" data-sentence-id="5428" class="ldml-sentence">The Senate Secretary declined to change course, however.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="5280" data-sentence-id="5485" class="ldml-sentence">Then, at 3:15 p.m., Senate Minority Leader <span class="ldml-entity">Chris Holbert</span> asked the Senate President, <span class="ldml-entity">Leroy M. Garcia, Jr.</span>, to slow down the computers.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="5280" data-sentence-id="5620" class="ldml-sentence">But, like the Senate Secretary, the Senate President refused to do so.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="5280" data-sentence-id="5691" class="ldml-sentence">Thus, between four and six computers continued to churn out unintelligible sounds for approximately four hours until the process completed shortly after 5 p.m.</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="5850" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="5850" data-sentence-id="5850" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_5850"><span class="ldml-cite">¶9</span></a></span> The next morning, Senators Cooke, Gardner, and Holbert <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-quotation quote">"<span class="ldml-entity">respondents</span>"</span>)</span> filed a verified complaint for injunctive relief and declaratory judgment against Senate President Garcia and Senate Secretary Markwell <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-quotation quote">"<span class="ldml-entity">petitioners</span>"</span>)</span> in <span class="ldml-entity">Denver District Court</span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="5850" data-sentence-id="6102" class="ldml-sentence">Almost immediately, <span class="ldml-entity">the court</span> granted a temporary restraining order preventing <span class="ldml-entity">petitioners</span> from: <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(1)</span> <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"refusing to read <span class="ldml-entity">legislation</span>"</span>—including HB 1172—<span class="ldml-quotation quote">"in an intelligible fashion"</span> without unanimous consent to dispense with the reading requirement, and <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(2)</span> passing HB 1172 in violation of <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_6102"><span class="ldml-cite">article V, section 22</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"by failing to read <span class="ldml-entity">the bill</span> out loud on two consecutive days."</span></span></p><p data-paragraph-id="6474" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="6474" data-sentence-id="6474" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_6474"><span class="ldml-cite">¶10</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-entity">Respondents</span> then filed a <span class="ldml-entity">motion for a preliminary injunction</span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="6474" data-sentence-id="6540" class="ldml-sentence">On <span class="ldml-entity">March 19, 2019</span>, <span class="ldml-entity">the court</span> held a hearing during which Senator Gardner testified about the unintelligible sounds produced by the computers.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="6474" data-sentence-id="6682" class="ldml-sentence">After listening to an audio recording of those sounds, <span class="ldml-entity">the court</span> agreed that <span class="ldml-entity">they</span> were indecipherable.</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="6784" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="6784" data-sentence-id="6784" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_6784"><span class="ldml-cite">¶11</span></a></span> At the end of the hearing, <span class="ldml-entity">the court</span> granted a preliminary injunction.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="6784" data-sentence-id="6859" class="ldml-sentence">In a subsequent written order, <span class="ldml-entity">the court</span> examined whether the issue before it was justiciable, recognizing that it lacked authority to resolve nonjusticiable political questions.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="6784" data-sentence-id="7038" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity">The court</span> concluded that <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"judicial intervention at this juncture in the legislative process <span class="ldml-parenthetical">[was]</span> appropriate and warranted"</span> because <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"<span class="ldml-parenthetical">[w]</span>hen a dispute arises that requires constitutional interpretation<span class="ldml-parenthetical">[,]</span> it is incumbent upon <span class="ldml-entity">the courts</span> to resolve the issue."</span></span> <span data-paragraph-id="6784" data-sentence-id="7298" class="ldml-sentence">Since <span class="ldml-entity">respondents</span>' <span class="ldml-entity">requests for relief</span> required the interpretation of the reading requirement in <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_7298"><span class="ldml-cite">article V, section 22</span></a></span>, <span class="ldml-entity">the court</span> <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"<span class="ldml-parenthetical">[did]</span> not perceive"</span> <span class="ldml-entity">the case</span> to involve a nonjusticiable political question.</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="7505" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="7505" data-sentence-id="7505" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_7505"><span class="ldml-cite">¶12</span></a></span> Having determined that it could hear <span class="ldml-entity">the case</span>, <span class="ldml-entity">the court</span> turned to whether the process that unfolded on the Senate floor on <span class="ldml-entity">March 11, 2019</span>, constituted <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"read<span class="ldml-parenthetical">[ing]</span>"</span> for purposes of <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_7505"><span class="ldml-cite">article V, section 22</span></a></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="7505" data-sentence-id="7712" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity">The court</span> held that it did not.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="7505" data-sentence-id="7744" class="ldml-sentence">It reasoned that <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"using multiple computers to read simultaneously different portions of <span class="ldml-entity">a bill</span> ... <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_7744"><span class="ldml-cite">at 650</span></a></span> words per minute <span class="ldml-parenthetical">[was]</span> not within <i class="ldml-italics">legitimate</i> limits."</span></span> <span data-paragraph-id="7505" data-sentence-id="7904" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity">The court</span> noted that it could not <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"discern a single word"</span> from the audio recording.</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="7987" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="7987" data-sentence-id="7987" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_7987"><span class="ldml-cite">¶13</span></a></span> Next, <span class="ldml-entity">the court</span> applied the factors from <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-refglobal="case:rathkevmacfarlaneno81sa263648p2d648july19,1982" data-prop-ids="sentence_7987"><span class="ldml-refname"><i class="ldml-italics">Rathke v. MacFarlane</i></span> , <span class="ldml-cite">648 P.2d 648
, 653–54</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-court">Colo.</span> <span class="ldml-date">1982</span>)</span></a></span>, to ascertain whether a preliminary injunction was appropriate.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="7987" data-sentence-id="8153" class="ldml-sentence">As pertinent here, it found that: <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(1)</span> <span class="ldml-entity">respondents</span> had a reasonable probability of success on the merits because <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"using multiple computers to read different portions of <span class="ldml-entity">the bill</span> at one time, at a speed the mind cannot comprehend, compromises and violates the legislative process"</span>; <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(2)</span> a preliminary injunction would prevent the real, immediate, and irreparable harm that would flow from <span class="ldml-entity">a bill</span> being passed in violation of <span class="ldml-entity">the constitution</span>; and <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(3)</span> granting a preliminary injunction would protect the public interest by allowing HB 1172 to be read <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"in a comprehensible fashion."</span></span> <span data-paragraph-id="7987" data-sentence-id="8731" class="ldml-sentence">Weighing all <span class="ldml-entity">the <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-refglobal="case:rathkevmacfarlaneno81sa263648p2d648july19,1982" data-prop-ids="sentence_8731"><span class="ldml-refname"><i class="ldml-italics">Rathke</i></span></a></span> factors</span>, <span class="ldml-entity">the court</span> ruled that <span class="ldml-entity">respondents</span> had met their burden on their <span class="ldml-entity">request for a preliminary injunction</span>.</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="8864" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="8864" data-sentence-id="8864" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_8864"><span class="ldml-cite">¶14</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-entity">The court</span> thus entered a preliminary injunction, pursuant to <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference"><span class="ldml-cite">C.R.C.P. 65<span class="ldml-parenthetical">(f)</span></span></a></span>, directing the Senate Secretary to comply with the reading requirement by <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"employ<span class="ldml-parenthetical">[ing]</span> a methodology that is designed to read <span class="ldml-entity">legislation</span> in an intelligible and comprehensive manner, and at an understandable speed."</span></span> <span data-paragraph-id="8864" data-sentence-id="9160" class="ldml-sentence">The Senate later passed HB 1172, in compliance with this directive, and the Governor ultimately signed <span class="ldml-entity">the bill</span> into law on <span class="ldml-entity">April 25, 2019</span>.</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="9299" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="9299" data-sentence-id="9299" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_9299"><span class="ldml-cite">¶15</span></a></span> On <span class="ldml-entity">May 8, 2019</span>, <span class="ldml-entity">the court</span> made the injunction permanent and granted <span class="ldml-entity">respondents</span>' <span class="ldml-entity">request for a declaratory judgment</span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="9299" data-sentence-id="9420" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity">The court</span> reiterated that: <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(1)</span> <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"using five computers reading different portions of <span class="ldml-parenthetical">[HB 1172]</span> at the same time at an incomprehensible speed"</span> violated the reading requirement <span class="ldml-pagenumber" data-id="pagenumber_9593" data-page_type="bracketed_cite" data-rep="P.3d" data-vol="482" data-val="426"></span> in <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_9420"><span class="ldml-cite">article V, section 22, and <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(2)</span></span></a></span> the Senate Secretary must read all future <span class="ldml-entity">legislation</span> <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"in an intelligible manner and at an understandable speed"</span> upon a member's objection to a request to dispense with the reading requirement.</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="9821" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="9821" data-sentence-id="9821" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_9821"><span class="ldml-cite">¶16</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-entity">Petitioners</span> appealed to <span class="ldml-entity">the court of appeals</span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="9821" data-sentence-id="9871" class="ldml-sentence">But <span class="ldml-entity">the parties</span> thereafter filed a joint <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference"><span class="ldml-cite">C.A.R. 50</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-entity">motion seeking direct review</span> by our <span class="ldml-entity">court</span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="9821" data-sentence-id="9965" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity">We</span> granted the motion.<a href="#note-fr5" class="ldml-noteanchor" id="note-ref-fr5">5</a></span> </p></div><div class="ldml-section"><section class="ldml-heading content__heading content__heading--depth1" data-ordinal_end="2" data-ordinal_start="2" data-format="upper_case_roman_numeral" data-types="analysis" data-specifier="II" data-confidences="very_high" data-id="heading_9988" data-content-heading-label="II. Analysis" data-parsed="true" data-value="II. Analysis" id="heading_9988"><span data-paragraph-id="9988" class="ldml-paragraph "><b class="ldml-bold"><span data-paragraph-id="9988" data-sentence-id="9988" class="ldml-sentence">II.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="9988" data-sentence-id="9992" class="ldml-sentence">Analysis</span></b></span></section><p data-paragraph-id="10000" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="10000" data-sentence-id="10000" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_10000"><span class="ldml-cite">¶17</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-entity">This case</span> requires <span class="ldml-entity">us</span> to consider the interwoven issues of justiciability, constitutional interpretation, and injunctive and declaratory relief.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="10000" data-sentence-id="10149" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity">We</span> first discuss the controlling standards of review.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="10000" data-sentence-id="10203" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity">We</span> then consider, but ultimately reject, <span class="ldml-entity">petitioners</span>' contention that, under <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/890249034" data-vids="890249034" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_10203"><span class="ldml-refname"><i class="ldml-italics">Baker v. Carr</i></span> , <span class="ldml-cite">369 U.S. 186
, 217</span>, <span class="ldml-cite">82 S.Ct. 691
</span>, <span class="ldml-cite">7 L.Ed.2d 663
</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-date">1962</span>)</span></a></span>, and its Colorado progeny, the question of whether the unintelligible computer sounds complied with the reading requirement is a nonjusticiable political question outside our purview.</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="10533" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="10533" data-sentence-id="10533" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_10533"><span class="ldml-cite">¶18</span></a></span> After determining that this dispute is justiciable and properly before <span class="ldml-entity">us</span>, <span class="ldml-entity">we</span> draw guidance from established principles of constitutional interpretation and hold that the unintelligible sounds that emanated from the computers did not comply with the reading requirement.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="10533" data-sentence-id="10808" class="ldml-sentence">But, unlike <span class="ldml-entity">the district court</span>, <span class="ldml-entity">we</span> stop short of telling <span class="ldml-entity">the legislature</span> <i class="ldml-italics">how</i> to comply with the reading requirement.</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="10924" class="ldml-paragraph "> <span data-paragraph-id="10924" data-sentence-id="10925" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_10925"><span class="ldml-cite">¶19</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-entity">We</span> wrap up our discussion by addressing <span class="ldml-entity">the district court</span>'s permanent injunction and declaratory judgment.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="10924" data-sentence-id="11037" class="ldml-sentence">Because both forms of relief dictated the specific manner by which <span class="ldml-entity">the legislature</span> must comply with the reading requirement, <span class="ldml-entity">we</span> conclude that <span class="ldml-entity">they</span> went too far.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="10924" data-sentence-id="11198" class="ldml-sentence">Accordingly, <span class="ldml-entity">we</span> affirm in part and reverse in part.<a href="#note-fr6" class="ldml-noteanchor" id="note-ref-fr6">6</a></span> </p><div class="ldml-section"><section class="ldml-heading content__heading content__heading--depth2" data-ordinal_end="1" data-ordinal_start="1" data-format="upper_case_letters" data-types="standardofreview" data-specifier="A" data-confidences="very_high" data-id="heading_11250" data-content-heading-label="A. Standards of Review" data-parsed="true" data-value="A. Standards of Review" id="heading_11250"><span data-paragraph-id="11250" class="ldml-paragraph "><b class="ldml-bold"><span data-paragraph-id="11250" data-sentence-id="11250" class="ldml-sentence">A.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="11250" data-sentence-id="11253" class="ldml-sentence">Standards of Review</span></b></span></section><p data-paragraph-id="11272" class="ldml-paragraph "> <span data-paragraph-id="11272" data-sentence-id="11273" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_11273"><span class="ldml-cite">¶20</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-entity">We</span> begin our analysis on a rare patch of common ground.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="11272" data-sentence-id="11333" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity">The parties</span> agree, and <span class="ldml-entity">we</span> concur, that issues of constitutional interpretation are questions of law that are subject to de novo review.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="11272" data-sentence-id="11469" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-referencechain"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-refglobal="case:gesslervcolocommoncause,2014co44" data-prop-ids="sentence_11333"><span class="ldml-refname"><i class="ldml-italics">Gessler v. Colo. Common Cause</i></span> , <span class="ldml-cite">2014 CO 44
</span></a></span>, <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_11333"><span class="ldml-cite">¶ 7</span></a></span></span>, <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/890442192" data-vids="890442192" class="ldml-reference"><span class="ldml-cite">327 P.3d 232
, 235</span></a></span>.</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="11536" class="ldml-paragraph "> <span data-paragraph-id="11536" data-sentence-id="11537" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_11537"><span class="ldml-cite">¶21</span></a></span> In contrast to the interpretation of a constitutional provision, <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"<span class="ldml-parenthetical">[t]</span>he grant or denial of a preliminary injunction is a decision which lies within the sound discretion of <span class="ldml-entity">the trial court</span>."</span></span> <span data-paragraph-id="11536" data-sentence-id="11731" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-referencechain"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-refglobal="case:evansvromerno93sa17854p2d1270,62fairemplpraccasbna779,62emplpracdecp42,621,62uslw2052july19,1993" data-prop-ids="sentence_11537"><span class="ldml-refname"><i class="ldml-italics">Evans v. Romer</i></span> , <span class="ldml-cite">854 P.2d 1270
, 1274</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-court">Colo.</span> <span class="ldml-date">1993</span>)</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-cert">quoting</span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-refglobal="case:rathkevmacfarlaneno81sa263648p2d648july19,1982" data-prop-ids="sentence_11537"><span class="ldml-refname"><i class="ldml-italics">Rathke</i></span> , <span class="ldml-cite">648 P.2d at 653</span></a></span> )</span></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="11536" data-sentence-id="11818" class="ldml-sentence">Likewise, the decision whether to enter a declaratory judgment is within the discretion of <span class="ldml-entity">the trial court</span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="11536" data-sentence-id="11926" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/887059513" data-vids="887059513" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_11818"><span class="ldml-refname"><i class="ldml-italics">Saxe v. Bd. of Trs. of Metro. State Coll. of Denver</i></span> , <span class="ldml-cite">179 P.3d 67
, 72</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-court">Colo. App.</span> <span class="ldml-date">2007</span>)</span></a></span>.</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="12014" class="ldml-paragraph "> <span data-paragraph-id="12014" data-sentence-id="12015" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_12015"><span class="ldml-cite">¶22</span></a></span> Generally, <span class="ldml-entity">we</span> show deference to a ruling within <span class="ldml-entity">the trial court</span>'s discretion; only if such a ruling is manifestly unreasonable, arbitrary, or unfair will <span class="ldml-entity">we</span> overturn it.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="12014" data-sentence-id="12189" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-refglobal="case:evansvromerno93sa17854p2d1270,62fairemplpraccasbna779,62emplpracdecp42,621,62uslw2052july19,1993" data-prop-ids="sentence_12015"><span class="ldml-refname"><i class="ldml-italics">Evans</i></span> , <span class="ldml-cite">854 P.2d at 1274</span></a></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="12014" data-sentence-id="12215" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-quotation quote">"If, however, the issue being reviewed concerns only legal, rather than factual<span class="ldml-parenthetical">[,]</span> questions,"</span> <span class="ldml-entity">we</span> owe no deference to <span class="ldml-entity"><span class="ldml-entity">the trial court</span>'s ruling</span> and our review is de novo.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="12014" data-sentence-id="12385" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-referencechain"><span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/895367800" data-vids="895367800" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="embeddedsentence_12464,sentence_12215"><span class="ldml-refname"><i class="ldml-italics">State ex rel. Salazar v. Cash Now Store, Inc.</i></span> , <span class="ldml-cite">31 P.3d 161
, 164</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-court">Colo.</span> <span class="ldml-date">2001</span>)</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-embeddedsentence">addressing <span class="ldml-entity"><span class="ldml-entity">a trial court</span>'s ruling</span> on a <span class="ldml-entity">motion for a preliminary injunction</span></span>)</span><span class="ldml-referenceseparator">;</span> <span class="ldml-signal"><i class="ldml-italics">see also</i></span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/891886362" data-vids="891886362" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="embeddedsentence_12613,sentence_12215"><span class="ldml-refname"><i class="ldml-italics">Zab, Inc. v. Berenergy Corp.</i></span> , <span class="ldml-cite">136 P.3d 252
, 254</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-court">Colo.</span> <span class="ldml-date">2006</span>)</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-quotation quote"><span class="ldml-embeddedsentence">"Whether <span class="ldml-entity">a trial court</span> may exercise its discretion in granting declaratory relief under the <span class="ldml-parenthetical">[Colorado Uniform Declaratory <span class="ldml-pagenumber" data-id="pagenumber_12735" data-page_type="bracketed_cite" data-rep="P.3d" data-vol="482" data-val="427"></span> Judgment Law]</span> is a matter of statutory interpretation, which <span class="ldml-entity">we</span> review de novo."</span></span>)</span></span></span><span data-paragraph-id="12014" data-sentence-id="12817" class="ldml-sentence">.</span></p></div><div class="ldml-section"><section class="ldml-heading content__heading content__heading--depth2" data-id="heading_12818" data-format="upper_case_letters" data-specifier="B" data-ordinal_end="2" data-ordinal_start="2" data-content-heading-label="B. Determining Whether Legislative Action Comports with Constitutional Requirements Is Squarely Within the Judiciary's Wheelhouse" data-parsed="true" data-value="B. Determining Whether Legislative Action Comports with Constitutional Requirements Is Squarely Within the Judiciary's Wheelhouse" id="heading_12818"><span data-paragraph-id="12818" class="ldml-paragraph "><b class="ldml-bold"><span data-paragraph-id="12818" data-sentence-id="12818" class="ldml-sentence">B.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="12818" data-sentence-id="12821" class="ldml-sentence">Determining Whether <span class="ldml-entity">Legislative Action</span> Comports with Constitutional Requirements Is Squarely Within the Judiciary's Wheelhouse</span></b></span></section><p data-paragraph-id="12947" class="ldml-paragraph "> <span data-paragraph-id="12947" data-sentence-id="12948" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_12948"><span class="ldml-cite">¶23</span></a></span> Before getting to the marrow of the matter, <span class="ldml-entity">we</span> must first address whether <span class="ldml-entity">this case</span> presents the kind of nonjusticiable political question <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"the resolution of which should be eschewed by <span class="ldml-entity">the courts</span>,"</span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-refglobal="case:cologenassembvlamm,704p2d1371,1380colo1985hereinafterlammii" data-prop-ids="sentence_12948"><span class="ldml-refname"><i class="ldml-italics">Colo. Gen. Assembly v. Lamm</i></span> , <span class="ldml-cite">704 P.2d 1371
, 1378</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-court">Colo.</span> <span class="ldml-date">1985</span>)</span></a></span>, in order to honor the doctrine of separation of powers, <span class="ldml-referencechain"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-refglobal="case:coloradocommoncausevbledsoe,810p2d,201,212colo1991lohr,j,concurringinpartanddissentinginpart" data-prop-ids="sentence_12948"><span class="ldml-refname"><i class="ldml-italics">Colo. Common Cause v. Bledsoe</i></span> , <span class="ldml-cite">810 P.2d 201
, 205</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-court">Colo.</span> <span class="ldml-date">1991</span>)</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-cert">citing</span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_12948"><span class="ldml-cite">Colo. Const. art. III</span></a></span> )</span></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="12947" data-sentence-id="13367" class="ldml-sentence">Like <span class="ldml-entity">the district court</span>, <span class="ldml-entity">we</span> conclude that the issue of whether <span class="ldml-entity">the legislature</span> complied with the reading requirement on <span class="ldml-entity">March 11, 2019</span>, requires constitutional interpretation and is thus a prime candidate for judicial resolution.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="12947" data-sentence-id="13597" class="ldml-sentence">Contrary to <span class="ldml-entity">petitioners</span>' arguments, this conclusion is supported by both <span class="ldml-entity">United States Supreme Court</span> jurisprudence and Colorado <span class="ldml-entity">case law</span>.</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="13734" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="13734" data-sentence-id="13734" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_13734"><span class="ldml-cite">¶24</span></a></span> In <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/890249034" data-vids="890249034" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_13734"><span class="ldml-refname"><i class="ldml-italics">Baker</i></span></a></span> , the <span class="ldml-entity">United States Supreme Court</span> identified the characteristics of a nonjusticiable political question, explaining:</span></p><blockquote data-paragraph-id="b_13863" class="ldml-blockquote"><span data-sentence-id="13863" class="ldml-sentence">Prominent on the surface of any case held to involve a political question is found a textually demonstrable constitutional commitment of the issue to a coordinate political department; or a lack of judicially discoverable and manageable standards for resolving it; or the impossibility of deciding without an initial policy determination of a kind clearly for nonjudicial discretion; or the impossibility of <span class="ldml-entity">a court</span>'s undertaking independent resolution without expressing lack of the respect due coordinate branches of government; or an unusual need for unquestioning adherence to a political decision already made; or the potentiality of embarrassment from multifarious pronouncements by various departments on one question.</span></blockquote><p data-paragraph-id="14588" class="ldml-paragraph "> <span data-paragraph-id="14588" data-sentence-id="14589" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/890249034" data-vids="890249034" class="ldml-reference"><span class="ldml-cite">369 U.S. at
217</span>, <span class="ldml-cite">82 S.Ct. 691
</span></a></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="14588" data-sentence-id="14620" class="ldml-sentence">But the meaningful utility of these characteristics has been questioned by well-respected legal scholars.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="14588" data-sentence-id="14726" class="ldml-sentence"><i class="ldml-italics">See, e.g.</i> , <span class="ldml-entity">Erwin Chemerinsky</span>, <i class="ldml-italics">Federal Jurisdiction</i> 153 <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference"><span class="ldml-cite">6th ed. 2007</span></a></span>)</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(expressing the view that the <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/890249034" data-vids="890249034" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_14726"><span class="ldml-refname"><i class="ldml-italics">Baker</i></span></a></span> characteristics <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"seem useless in identifying what constitutes a political question,"</span> and observing that <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"most important constitutional provisions,"</span> including those that <span class="ldml-entity">courts</span> have never hesitated to interpret, "are written in broad, open-textured language and certainly do not include <span class="ldml-quotation quote">‘judicially discoverable and manageable standards’</span> ")</span>.</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="15173" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="15173" data-sentence-id="15173" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_15173"><span class="ldml-cite">¶25</span></a></span> Helpful or not, the <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/890249034" data-vids="890249034" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_15173"><span class="ldml-refname"><i class="ldml-italics">Baker</i></span></a></span> characteristics cannot be mechanically applied here because <span class="ldml-entity"><span class="ldml-entity">Colorado district</span> courts</span>, unlike their federal counterparts, are <span class="ldml-entity">courts</span> of general jurisdiction.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="15173" data-sentence-id="15360" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-referencechain"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_15173"><span class="ldml-cite">Colo. Const. art. VI, § 9</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-referenceseparator">;</span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-refglobal="case:seelobatovstate,218p3d358,371colo2009lobatoi" data-prop-ids="sentence_15173"><span class="ldml-refname"><i class="ldml-italics">Lobato v. State</i></span> , <span class="ldml-cite">218 P.3d 358
, 369–70</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-court">Colo.</span> <span class="ldml-date">2009</span>)</span></a></span></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="15173" data-sentence-id="15441" class="ldml-sentence">This critical difference between federal and state judicial authority is widely recognized and has been noted by none other than <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/890249034" data-vids="890249034" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_15441"><span class="ldml-refname"><i class="ldml-italics">Baker</i></span></a></span> 's authoring justice.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="15173" data-sentence-id="15598" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-referencechain"><span class="ldml-signal"><i class="ldml-italics">See</i></span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="embeddedsentence_15723,sentence_15441"><span class="ldml-refname">William J. Brennan, Jr., <i class="ldml-italics">State Constitutions and the Protection of Individual Rights</i></span> , <span class="ldml-cite">90 Harv. L. Rev. 489
, 501</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-date">1977</span>)</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-quotation quote"><span class="ldml-embeddedsentence">"<span class="ldml-parenthetical">[S]</span>tate courts that rest their decisions wholly or even partly on state law need not apply federal principles of standing and justiciability that deny litigants access to <span class="ldml-entity">the courts</span>."</span></span>)</span></span></span><span data-paragraph-id="15173" data-sentence-id="15908" class="ldml-sentence">.</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="15909" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="15909" data-sentence-id="15909" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_15909"><span class="ldml-cite">¶26</span></a></span> Even so, <span class="ldml-entity">we</span> have consistently considered the characteristics outlined in <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/890249034" data-vids="890249034" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_15909"><span class="ldml-refname"><i class="ldml-italics">Baker</i></span></a></span> in our previous forays into the realm of justiciability.<a href="#note-fr7" class="ldml-noteanchor" id="note-ref-fr7">7</a></span> <span data-paragraph-id="15909" data-sentence-id="16049" class="ldml-sentence">And, importantly, mindful of those characteristics, <span class="ldml-entity">we</span> have found justiciable a constitutional question similar to the one <span class="ldml-entity">we</span> confront today.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="15909" data-sentence-id="16191" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-referencechain"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-signal">See</span> </i> <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-refglobal="case:coloradocommoncausevbledsoe,810p2d,201,212colo1991lohr,j,concurringinpartanddissentinginpart" data-prop-ids="sentence_16049"><span class="ldml-refname"><i class="ldml-italics">Bledsoe</i></span> , <span class="ldml-cite">810 P.2d at 206</span></a></span></span>.</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="16222" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="16222" data-sentence-id="16222" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_16222"><span class="ldml-cite">¶27</span></a></span> In <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-refglobal="case:coloradocommoncausevbledsoe,810p2d,201,212colo1991lohr,j,concurringinpartanddissentinginpart" data-prop-ids="sentence_16222"><span class="ldml-refname"><i class="ldml-italics">Bledsoe</i></span></a></span> , <span class="ldml-entity">we</span> were called upon to determine whether alleged violations of the <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"Give A Vote to Each Legislator"</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-quotation quote">"GAVEL"</span>)</span> <span class="ldml-entity">amendment</span> to <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_16222"><span class="ldml-cite">article V of the Colorado Constitution</span></a></span> presented nonjusticiable political questions.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="16222" data-sentence-id="16447" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-refglobal="case:coloradocommoncausevbledsoe,810p2d,201,212colo1991lohr,j,concurringinpartanddissentinginpart" data-prop-ids="sentence_16222"><span class="ldml-cite"><i class="ldml-italics">Id.</i> at 205</span></a></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="16222" data-sentence-id="16459" class="ldml-sentence">The GAVEL <span class="ldml-entity">amendment</span> <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"prohibit<span class="ldml-parenthetical">[ed]</span> members of the General Assembly from committing themselves, or requiring other members to commit themselves, <span class="ldml-quotation quote">‘through a vote in <span class="ldml-entity">a party</span> caucus or any other similar procedure<span class="ldml-parenthetical">[ ]</span> to vote in favor of or against any <span class="ldml-entity">bill</span> ... or other measure or issue pending or proposed to be introduced in the general assembly.’</span> "</span></span> <span data-paragraph-id="16222" data-sentence-id="16805" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-referencechain"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-refglobal="case:coloradocommoncausevbledsoe,810p2d,201,212colo1991lohr,j,concurringinpartanddissentinginpart" data-prop-ids="sentence_16459"><span class="ldml-cite"><i class="ldml-italics">Id.</i> at 203</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-pagenumber" data-id="pagenumber_16816" data-page_type="bracketed_cite" data-rep="P.3d" data-vol="482" data-val="428"></span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-cert">quoting</span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_16459"><span class="ldml-cite">Colo. Const. art. V, § 22a</span></a></span> )</span></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="16222" data-sentence-id="16856" class="ldml-sentence">The alleged violations of the GAVEL <span class="ldml-entity">amendment</span> in <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-refglobal="case:coloradocommoncausevbledsoe,810p2d,201,212colo1991lohr,j,concurringinpartanddissentinginpart" data-prop-ids="sentence_16856"><span class="ldml-refname"><i class="ldml-italics">Bledsoe</i></span></a></span> were related to voting commitments given by majority caucus members prior to the introduction of an appropriations <span class="ldml-entity">bill</span> into the General Assembly.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="16222" data-sentence-id="17060" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-refglobal="case:coloradocommoncausevbledsoe,810p2d,201,212colo1991lohr,j,concurringinpartanddissentinginpart" data-prop-ids="sentence_16856"><span class="ldml-cite"><i class="ldml-italics">Id.</i> at 204</span></a></span>.</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="17071" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="17071" data-sentence-id="17071" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_17071"><span class="ldml-cite">¶28</span></a></span> Notably, like the reading requirement, the GAVEL <span class="ldml-entity">amendment</span> was aimed at ensuring the integrity of <span class="ldml-entity">the enactment of bills</span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="17071" data-sentence-id="17197" class="ldml-sentence"><i class="ldml-italics">Compare Proceedings of the Constitutional Convention of <span class="ldml-entity">1875</span></i> 725 <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-entity">1907</span>)</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-quotation quote">"To afford protection from hasty <span class="ldml-entity">legislation</span>, it is required that all <span class="ldml-entity">bills</span> ... shall be <i class="ldml-italics">read</i> on ... different days in each house before being passed"</span>)</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-referencenote">emphasis added</span>)</span>,<a href="#note-fr8" class="ldml-noteanchor" id="note-ref-fr8">8</a> <i class="ldml-italics">and </i> <span class="ldml-referencechain"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-refglobal="case:inrehousebillno25057p49,26colo234april22,1899" data-prop-ids="sentence_17197"><span class="ldml-refname"><i class="ldml-italics">In re House Bill No. 250</i></span> , <span class="ldml-cite">26 Colo. 234
</span>, <span class="ldml-cite">57 P. 49
, 50</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-date">1899</span>)</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-embeddedsentence"><span class="ldml-quotation quote">"The object"</span> of the printing requirement, which was adopted in conjunction with the reading requirement, <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"is to prevent, so far as possible, fraud and trickery and deceit and subterfuge in <span class="ldml-entity">the enactment of bills</span>, and to prevent hasty and ill-considered <span class="ldml-entity">legislation</span>."</span></span>)</span></span>, <i class="ldml-italics">with</i> <span class="ldml-entity">Legislative Council of the Colorado General Assembly</span>, <i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-entity">An Analysis of <span class="ldml-entity">1988</span></span> Ballot Proposals</i> 21 <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-entity">Aug. 16, 1988</span>)</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">[https://perma.cc/U2N3-G837]</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical"><span class="ldml-embeddedsentence">(under the GAVEL <span class="ldml-entity">amendment</span>, </span><span class="ldml-quotation quote"><span class="ldml-embeddedsentence">"<span class="ldml-parenthetical">[l]</span>egislators will be given constitutional protection from being obligated to vote a certain way because of <span class="ldml-entity">a party</span> caucus position.</span> <span class="ldml-embeddedsentence">The end result will be that the debate and vote on <span class="ldml-entity">bills</span> will reflect an exchange of ideas between differing ideologies rather than perfunctory floor debate"</span></span>)</span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="17071" data-sentence-id="18242" class="ldml-sentence">Our <span class="ldml-entity">analysis in <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-refglobal="case:coloradocommoncausevbledsoe,810p2d,201,212colo1991lohr,j,concurringinpartanddissentinginpart" data-prop-ids="sentence_18242"><span class="ldml-refname"><i class="ldml-italics">Bledsoe</i></span></a></span></span> , then, is of particular relevance.</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="18301" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="18301" data-sentence-id="18301" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_18301"><span class="ldml-cite">¶29</span></a></span> Evaluating the concerns raised by <span class="ldml-entity">the <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/890249034" data-vids="890249034" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_18301"><span class="ldml-refname"><i class="ldml-italics">Baker</i></span></a></span> Court</span>, <span class="ldml-entity">we</span> concluded in <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-refglobal="case:coloradocommoncausevbledsoe,810p2d,201,212colo1991lohr,j,concurringinpartanddissentinginpart" data-prop-ids="sentence_18301"><span class="ldml-refname"><i class="ldml-italics">Bledsoe</i></span></a></span> that:</span></p><blockquote data-paragraph-id="b_18385" class="ldml-blockquote"><span data-sentence-id="18385" class="ldml-sentence">Our interpreting these <span class="ldml-parenthetical">[constitutional]</span> provisions in no way infringes on the powers and duties of the coequal departments of our government; moreover, <span class="ldml-entity">we</span> do not find present any of the political-question characteristics identified by the <span class="ldml-entity">United States Supreme Court</span>.</span> <span data-sentence-id="18653" class="ldml-sentence">On the contrary, the issue before <span class="ldml-entity">us</span> <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"is one traditionally within the role of the judiciary to resolve,"</span> for <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"it is peculiarly the province of the judiciary to interpret <span class="ldml-entity">the constitution</span> and say what the law is."</span></span> <span data-sentence-id="18866" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity">We</span> have decided numerous <span class="ldml-entity">other cases</span> that have raised issues of whether <span class="ldml-entity">legislative actions</span> violated statutory or constitutional provisions, and <span class="ldml-entity">we</span> have not held that the nature of such questions automatically renders them nonjusticiable political questions.</span> <span data-sentence-id="19125" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity">We</span> decline to find that the constitutional issues presented in <span class="ldml-entity">this case</span> constitute nonjusticiable political questions.</span></blockquote><p data-paragraph-id="19244" class="ldml-paragraph "> <span data-paragraph-id="19244" data-sentence-id="19245" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-referencechain"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-refglobal="case:coloradocommoncausevbledsoe,810p2d,201,212colo1991lohr,j,concurringinpartanddissentinginpart"><span class="ldml-refname"><i class="ldml-italics">Bledsoe</i></span> , <span class="ldml-cite">810 P.2d at 206</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-referencenote">internal citations omitted</span>)</span></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="19244" data-sentence-id="19301" class="ldml-sentence">So too here—the political-question characteristics set forth in <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/890249034" data-vids="890249034" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_19301"><span class="ldml-refname"><i class="ldml-italics">Baker</i></span></a></span> are glaringly absent, and our interpretation of the constitutional provision under challenge in no way transgresses the bounds of another branch of government.</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="19530" class="ldml-paragraph "> <span data-paragraph-id="19530" data-sentence-id="19531" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_19531"><span class="ldml-cite">¶30</span></a></span> Unlike a policy decision or a value judgment, constitutional interpretation is not an issue <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"best left for resolution by the other branches of government, or <span class="ldml-quotation quote">‘to be fought out on the hustings and determined by <span class="ldml-entity">the people</span> at the polls.’</span> "</span></span> <span data-paragraph-id="19530" data-sentence-id="19773" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-referencechain"><span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/890249034" data-vids="890249034" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_19531"><span class="ldml-cite"><i class="ldml-italics">Id.</i> at 205</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-cert">quoting</span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/886600490" data-vids="886600490" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_19531"><span class="ldml-refname"><i class="ldml-italics">People ex rel. Tate v. Prevost</i></span> , <span class="ldml-cite">55 Colo. 199
</span>, <span class="ldml-cite">134 P. 129
, 133</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-date">1913</span>)</span></a></span> )</span></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="19530" data-sentence-id="19866" class="ldml-sentence">Rather, it is one that is <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"peculiarly <span class="ldml-parenthetical">[within]</span> the province of the judiciary."</span></span> <span data-paragraph-id="19530" data-sentence-id="19945" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-referencechain"><span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/890249034" data-vids="890249034" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_19866"><span class="ldml-cite"><i class="ldml-italics">Id.</i> at 206</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-cert">quoting</span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-refglobal="case:cologenassembvlamm,704p2d1371,1380colo1985hereinafterlammii" data-prop-ids="sentence_19866"><span class="ldml-refname"><i class="ldml-italics">Lamm</i></span> , <span class="ldml-cite">704 P.2d at 1378</span></a></span> )</span></span>.</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="19991" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="19991" data-sentence-id="19991" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_19991"><span class="ldml-cite">¶31</span></a></span> And so, though <span class="ldml-entity">we</span> deliberately write narrowly today out of respect for our coordinate branch of government charged with enacting laws, <span class="ldml-entity">we</span> decline to find that <span class="ldml-entity">this case</span> presents a question that's off limits to the judiciary.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="19991" data-sentence-id="20220" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-quotation quote"><span class="ldml-embeddedsentence">"It cannot be forgotten that ... the judicial department has imposed upon it the solemn duty to interpret the laws in the last resort.</span> <span class="ldml-embeddedsentence">However delicate that duty may be, <span class="ldml-entity">we</span> are not at liberty to surrender, or to ignore, or to waive it."</span></span></span> <span data-paragraph-id="19991" data-sentence-id="20457" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-refglobal="case:inthematteroflegislativereapportionmentharoldsteinvthegeneralassemblyofthestateofcoloradono20240374p2d66,150colo380july6,1962" data-prop-ids="sentence_20220"><span class="ldml-refname"><i class="ldml-italics">In re Legis. </i> <i class="ldml-italics">Reapportionment</i></span> , <span class="ldml-cite">150 Colo. 380
</span>, <span class="ldml-cite">374 P.2d 66
, 68</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-date">1962</span>)</span></a></span>.</span></p></div><div class="ldml-section"><section class="ldml-heading content__heading content__heading--depth2" data-id="heading_20527" data-format="upper_case_letters" data-specifier="C" data-ordinal_end="3" data-ordinal_start="3" data-content-heading-label="C. The Unintelligible Computer Sounds Did Not Comply with the Reading Requirement" data-parsed="true" data-value="C. The Unintelligible Computer Sounds Did Not Comply with the Reading Requirement" id="heading_20527"><span data-paragraph-id="20527" class="ldml-paragraph "><b class="ldml-bold"><span data-paragraph-id="20527" data-sentence-id="20527" class="ldml-sentence">C.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="20527" data-sentence-id="20530" class="ldml-sentence">The Unintelligible Computer Sounds Did Not Comply with the Reading Requirement</span></b></span></section><p data-paragraph-id="20608" class="ldml-paragraph "> <span data-paragraph-id="20608" data-sentence-id="20609" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_20609"><span class="ldml-cite">¶32</span></a></span> Since <span class="ldml-entity">we</span> have concluded that <span class="ldml-entity">this case</span> is justiciable, <span class="ldml-entity">we</span> proceed to settle <span class="ldml-pagenumber" data-id="pagenumber_20689" data-page_type="bracketed_cite" data-rep="P.3d" data-vol="482" data-val="429"></span> <span class="ldml-entity">the parties</span>' disagreement.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="20608" data-sentence-id="20717" class="ldml-sentence">Before getting ahead of ourselves, though, <span class="ldml-entity">we</span> pause to underscore the constricted scope of the question <span class="ldml-entity">we</span> resolve today: Did the unintelligible sounds generated by the computers on the Senate floor on <span class="ldml-entity">March 11, 2019</span>, satisfy the reading requirement in <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_20717"><span class="ldml-cite">article V, section 22</span></a></span> ?</span> <span data-paragraph-id="20608" data-sentence-id="20994" class="ldml-sentence">Although <span class="ldml-entity">we</span> answer the question in the negative, <span class="ldml-entity">we</span> abstain from specifying the form or manner by which <span class="ldml-entity">the legislature</span> may comply with the reading requirement.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="20608" data-sentence-id="21155" class="ldml-sentence">Where, as here, a <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"constitutional requirement can be complied with in a number of ways,"</span> our task is limited: <span class="ldml-entity">We</span> simply <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"determine whether the method actually chosen is in conformity,"</span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-refglobal="case:inreinterrogatoriesofgovernorregardingcertainbillsoffifty–firstgenassembly,195colo198,214,578p2d200,2111978carrigan,j,dissenting" data-prop-ids="sentence_21155"><span class="ldml-refname"><i class="ldml-italics">In re Interrogatories of Governor Regarding Certain Bills of Fifty-First Gen. Assembly</i></span> , <span class="ldml-cite">195 Colo. 198
</span>, <span class="ldml-cite">578 P.2d 200
, 208</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-date">1978</span>)</span></a></span> —no more, no less.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="20608" data-sentence-id="21488" class="ldml-sentence">Thus, while it falls to <span class="ldml-entity">us</span> to discern whether the unintelligible computer sounds complied with the reading requirement, the possible forms or manners of compliance fall within <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"the sole province of <span class="ldml-entity">the Legislature</span>."</span></span> <span data-paragraph-id="20608" data-sentence-id="21704" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-refglobal="case:inreinterrogatoriesfromhouseofrepresentativesconcerningsenatebillno24,thirty-ninthgenassembly,127colo160,254p2d853,856–571953" data-prop-ids="sentence_21488"><span class="ldml-refname"><i class="ldml-italics">In re Interrogatories from House of Representatives Concerning Senate Bill No. 24, Thirty-Ninth Gen. Assembly</i></span> , <span class="ldml-cite">127 Colo. 160
</span>, <span class="ldml-cite">254 P.2d 853
, 857</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-date">1953</span>)</span></a></span>.</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="21856" class="ldml-paragraph "> <span data-paragraph-id="21856" data-sentence-id="21857" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_21857"><span class="ldml-cite">¶33</span></a></span> Whether <span class="ldml-entity">the legislature</span> adhered to the reading requirement here hinges on our <span class="ldml-entity">interpretation of <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_21857"><span class="ldml-cite">article V, section 22</span></a></span></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="21856" data-sentence-id="21980" class="ldml-sentence">In interpreting a constitutional provision, our obligation is twofold: to <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"prevent an evasion of <span class="ldml-parenthetical">[the <span class="ldml-entity">constitution</span>'s]</span> legitimate operation"</span> and to effectuate <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"the intentions of the framers of our <span class="ldml-entity">constitution</span> and <span class="ldml-entity">the people</span> of the <span class="ldml-entity">State of Colorado</span>."</span></span> <span data-paragraph-id="21856" data-sentence-id="22231" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-refglobal="case:coloradocommoncausevbledsoe,810p2d,201,212colo1991lohr,j,concurringinpartanddissentinginpart" data-prop-ids="sentence_21980"><span class="ldml-refname"><i class="ldml-italics">Bledsoe</i></span> , <span class="ldml-cite">810 P.2d at 206–07</span></a></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="21856" data-sentence-id="22261" class="ldml-sentence">The starting post for our construction is the <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"ordinary and popular meaning"</span> of the plain language of the constitutional provision.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="21856" data-sentence-id="22393" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-referencechain"><span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/886162640" data-vids="886162640" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_22261"><span class="ldml-refname"><i class="ldml-italics">Gessler v. Smith</i></span> , <span class="ldml-cite">2018 CO 48
</span></a></span>, <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_22261"><span class="ldml-cite">¶ 18</span></a></span></span>, <span class="ldml-referencechain"><span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/886162640" data-vids="886162640" class="ldml-reference"><span class="ldml-cite">419 P.3d 964
, 969</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-cert">quoting</span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/888215283" data-vids="888215283" class="ldml-reference"><span class="ldml-refname"><i class="ldml-italics">Colo. Ethics Watch v. Senate Majority Fund, LLC</i></span> , <span class="ldml-cite">2012 CO 12
</span></a></span>, <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference"><span class="ldml-cite">¶ 20</span></a></span>, <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/888215283" data-vids="888215283" class="ldml-reference"><span class="ldml-cite">269 P.3d 1248
, 1253–54</span></a></span> )</span></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="21856" data-sentence-id="22551" class="ldml-sentence">In discerning the ordinary and popular meaning of an undefined word in a constitutional provision, <span class="ldml-entity">we</span> may consult definitions in recognized dictionaries.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="21856" data-sentence-id="22705" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/893143146" data-vids="893143146" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_22551"><span class="ldml-refname"><i class="ldml-italics">Wash. Cnty. Bd. of Equalization v. Petron Dev. Co.</i></span> , <span class="ldml-cite">109 P.3d 146
, 152</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-court">Colo.</span> <span class="ldml-date">2005</span>)</span></a></span>.</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="22789" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="22789" data-sentence-id="22789" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_22789"><span class="ldml-cite">¶34</span></a></span> Recall that the reading requirement provides in pertinent part: <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"Every <span class="ldml-entity">bill</span> shall be <i class="ldml-italics">read</i> by title when introduced, and at length on two different days in each house ...."</span></span> <span data-paragraph-id="22789" data-sentence-id="22965" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-referencechain"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_22789"><span class="ldml-cite">Colo. Const. art. V, § 22</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-referencenote">emphasis added</span>)</span></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="22789" data-sentence-id="23009" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity">The constitution</span> does not define the word <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"read."</span></span> <span data-paragraph-id="22789" data-sentence-id="23059" class="ldml-sentence">What, then, is its ordinary and popular meaning?</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="23107" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="23107" data-sentence-id="23107" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_23107"><span class="ldml-cite">¶35</span></a></span> Predictably, <span class="ldml-entity">the parties</span> come to loggerheads over the answer to this question, each side advocating for the dictionary definitions most compatible with its respective position.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="23107" data-sentence-id="23288" class="ldml-sentence">But <span class="ldml-entity">we</span> need not decide which definition reigns supreme.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="23107" data-sentence-id="23344" class="ldml-sentence">It suffices to declare that the unintelligible computer sounds did not conform with <i class="ldml-italics">any</i> of the proffered definitions or the definitions that <span class="ldml-entity">we</span> have independently consulted.</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="23517" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="23517" data-sentence-id="23517" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_23517"><span class="ldml-cite">¶36</span></a></span> An <span class="ldml-entity">1866</span> edition of Webster's Dictionary <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(roughly contemporaneous with the <span class="ldml-entity">1876</span> adoption of the <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_23517"><span class="ldml-cite">Colorado Constitution</span></a></span> and the reading requirement)</span> defined <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"read"</span> to mean: <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"<span class="ldml-parenthetical">[t]</span>o utter or pronounce written or printed words, letters or characters <i class="ldml-italics">in the proper order</i> ; to repeat the names or <i class="ldml-italics">utter the sounds customarily annexed to words</i> , letters or characters."</span></span> <span data-paragraph-id="23517" data-sentence-id="23881" class="ldml-sentence"><i class="ldml-italics">Read</i> , A Dictionary of the English Language 818 <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference"><span class="ldml-cite">10th ed. 1866</span></a></span>)</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">[https://perma.cc/BEZ8-CW9J]</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-referencenote">emphases added</span>)</span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="23517" data-sentence-id="23992" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity">We</span> deem it significant that under this definition, which <span class="ldml-entity">petitioners</span> fully embrace in their reply brief, the unintelligible sounds produced by the computers clearly did not constitute a <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"read<span class="ldml-parenthetical">[ing]</span>"</span> of HB 1172.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="23517" data-sentence-id="24202" class="ldml-sentence">The words of <span class="ldml-entity">the bill</span> were certainly not uttered or pronounced in their proper order.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="23517" data-sentence-id="24288" class="ldml-sentence">Nor were the sounds that customarily accompany those words ever uttered.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="23517" data-sentence-id="24361" class="ldml-sentence">Instead, the computers combined to create a noisy mishmash.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="23517" data-sentence-id="24421" class="ldml-sentence">The indiscernible sounds generated by the computers could not have been confused with the sounds that customarily accompany the words of HB 1172.</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="24566" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="24566" data-sentence-id="24566" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_24566"><span class="ldml-cite">¶37</span></a></span> An <span class="ldml-entity">1890</span>s Webster's Dictionary is equally unavailing for <span class="ldml-entity">petitioners</span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="24566" data-sentence-id="24639" class="ldml-sentence">That dictionary defined <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"read"</span> to mean, among other things: <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(1)</span> <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"<span class="ldml-parenthetical">[t]</span>o interpret; to explain"</span>; <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(2)</span> <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"<span class="ldml-parenthetical">[t]</span>o tell; to declare; to recite"</span>; <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(3)</span> <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"<span class="ldml-parenthetical">[t]</span>o go over, as characters or words, and utter aloud, or to recite to one's self inaudibly; to take in the sense of, as of language, by interpreting the characters with which it is expressed; to peruse"</span>; <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(4)</span> <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"to know fully; to comprehend"</span>; and <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(5)</span> <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"<span class="ldml-parenthetical">[t]</span>o discover or understand by characters, marks, features, etc.; to learn by observation."</span></span> <span class="ldml-pagenumber" data-id="pagenumber_25120" data-page_type="bracketed_cite" data-rep="P.3d" data-vol="482" data-val="430"></span></p><p data-paragraph-id="25120" class="ldml-paragraph "> <span data-paragraph-id="25120" data-sentence-id="25121" class="ldml-sentence"><i class="ldml-italics">Read</i> , Webster's International Dictionary 1194 <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-entity">1890</span>)</span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="25120" data-sentence-id="25176" class="ldml-sentence">The unintelligible computer sounds fit within none of these definitions.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="25120" data-sentence-id="25249" class="ldml-sentence">There was no way to interpret, explain, know fully, comprehend, learn, discover, or understand the text of HB 1172 by listening to the noise made by the computers.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="25120" data-sentence-id="25413" class="ldml-sentence">And that noise could not have been fairly characterized as telling, declaring, reciting, perusing, going over words and reciting, or <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"tak<span class="ldml-parenthetical">[ing]</span> in the sense of language."</span></span> <span data-paragraph-id="25120" data-sentence-id="25583" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_25413"><span class="ldml-cite"><i class="ldml-italics">Id.</i></span></a></span></span> <span data-paragraph-id="25120" data-sentence-id="25587" class="ldml-sentence">What the computers produced was pure dissonance.</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="25635" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="25635" data-sentence-id="25635" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_25635"><span class="ldml-cite">¶38</span></a></span> Current dictionaries define <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"read"</span> along similar lines and reveal that the meaning of the word has not changed substantially since <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_25635"><span class="ldml-cite">article V, section 22</span></a></span> was adopted in <span class="ldml-entity">1876</span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="25635" data-sentence-id="25813" class="ldml-sentence"><i class="ldml-italics">See, e.g.</i> , <i class="ldml-italics">Read</i> , Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary <span class="ldml-parenthetical">[https://perma.cc/XCH4-TV3N]</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(defining <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"read"</span> as <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"to utter aloud the printed or written words of"</span>)</span>; <i class="ldml-italics">Read</i> , Collins Online Dictionary <span class="ldml-parenthetical">[https://perma.cc/VS44-TA5R]</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(defining <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"read"</span> as to <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"say the words aloud"</span>)</span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="25635" data-sentence-id="26075" class="ldml-sentence">Again, what came out of the computers were incomprehensible sounds, not words uttered or said aloud.</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="26175" class="ldml-paragraph "> <span data-paragraph-id="26175" data-sentence-id="26176" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_26176"><span class="ldml-cite">¶39</span></a></span> These and other definitions demand the same conclusion: Whatever the legitimate contours of the reading requirement, the unintelligible sounds from the computers do not fall within them.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="26175" data-sentence-id="26367" class="ldml-sentence">Put differently, while there are no doubt different ways to describe the noise made by the computers, <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"read<span class="ldml-parenthetical">[ing]</span>"</span> isn't one of them.</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="26499" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="26499" data-sentence-id="26499" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_26499"><span class="ldml-cite">¶40</span></a></span> Significantly, today's decision aligns with the animating purpose behind the reading requirement.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="26499" data-sentence-id="26601" class="ldml-sentence">This is a strong bang to the gong that signals that <span class="ldml-entity"><span class="ldml-entity">petitioners</span>' interpretation</span> of the reading requirement is untenable.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="26499" data-sentence-id="26722" class="ldml-sentence">As <span class="ldml-entity">we</span> mentioned, the cardinal rule of constitutional interpretation calls on <span class="ldml-entity">us</span> to give life to the intent of the framers and <span class="ldml-entity">the people</span> of the <span class="ldml-entity">State of Colorado</span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="26499" data-sentence-id="26885" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-refglobal="case:coloradocommoncausevbledsoe,810p2d,201,212colo1991lohr,j,concurringinpartanddissentinginpart" data-prop-ids="sentence_26722"><span class="ldml-refname"><i class="ldml-italics">Bledsoe</i></span> , <span class="ldml-cite">810 P.2d at 206</span></a></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="26499" data-sentence-id="26912" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity">We</span> underscore that the objective of the reading requirement is <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"<span class="ldml-parenthetical">[t]</span>o afford protection from hasty <span class="ldml-entity">legislation</span>,"</span> which, in turn, helps preserve the integrity of <span class="ldml-entity">the bill</span>-<span class="ldml-entity">enactment</span> process.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="26499" data-sentence-id="27100" class="ldml-sentence"><i class="ldml-italics">Proceedings of the Constitutional Convention of <span class="ldml-entity">1875</span></i> 725 <span class="ldml-referencechain"><span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-entity">1907</span>)</span><span class="ldml-referenceseparator">;</span> <span class="ldml-signal"><i class="ldml-italics">see also</i></span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-refglobal="case:inrehousebillno25057p49,26colo234april22,1899" data-prop-ids="sentence_27100"><span class="ldml-refname"><i class="ldml-italics">In re House Bill No. 250</i></span> , <span class="ldml-cite">57 P. at 50</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-embeddedsentence">the goal of the printing requirement, which was enacted hand-in-hand with the reading requirement, is <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"to prevent, so far as possible, fraud and trickery and deceit and subterfuge in <span class="ldml-entity">the enactment of bills</span>, and to prevent hasty and ill-considered <span class="ldml-entity">legislation</span>"</span></span>)</span></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="26499" data-sentence-id="27476" class="ldml-sentence">Our review of the inscrutable computer sounds leads <span class="ldml-entity">us</span> to proclaim without hesitation that <span class="ldml-entity">they</span> can in no way be reasonably viewed as consistent with the reading requirement's objective.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="26499" data-sentence-id="27663" class="ldml-sentence">To the contrary, accepting the jumbled computer sounds as <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"read<span class="ldml-parenthetical">[ing]</span>"</span> under <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_27663"><span class="ldml-cite">article V, section 22</span></a></span> would directly undermine the purpose of the reading requirement.</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="27825" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="27825" data-sentence-id="27825" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_27825"><span class="ldml-cite">¶41</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-entity">The district court</span> was of a like mind and held that the unintelligible computer sounds did not constitute <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"read<span class="ldml-parenthetical">[ing]</span>"</span> in accordance with <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_27825"><span class="ldml-cite">article V, section 22</span></a></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="27825" data-sentence-id="27989" class="ldml-sentence">And <span class="ldml-entity">we</span> affirm that part of its judgment.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="27825" data-sentence-id="28030" class="ldml-sentence">But <span class="ldml-entity">the court</span> didn't stop there.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="27825" data-sentence-id="28063" class="ldml-sentence">It went on to tell <span class="ldml-entity">the legislature</span> <i class="ldml-italics">how</i> it must comply with the reading requirement.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="27825" data-sentence-id="28147" class="ldml-sentence">As <span class="ldml-entity">we</span> foreshadowed earlier and as <span class="ldml-entity">we</span> discuss in some detail next, this was error.</span></p></div><div class="ldml-section"><section class="ldml-heading content__heading content__heading--depth2" data-id="heading_28228" data-format="upper_case_letters" data-specifier="D" data-ordinal_end="4" data-ordinal_start="4" data-content-heading-label="D. The District Court's Permanent Injunction and Declaratory Judgment Impermissibly Prescribed How the Legislature Must Comply with the Reading Requirement" data-parsed="true" data-value="D. The District Court's Permanent Injunction and Declaratory Judgment Impermissibly Prescribed How the Legislature Must Comply with the Reading Requirement" id="heading_28228"><span data-paragraph-id="28228" class="ldml-paragraph "><b class="ldml-bold"><span data-paragraph-id="28228" data-sentence-id="28228" class="ldml-sentence">D.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="28228" data-sentence-id="28231" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity">The District Court</span>'s Permanent Injunction and Declaratory Judgment Impermissibly Prescribed How <span class="ldml-entity">the Legislature</span> Must Comply with the Reading Requirement</span></b></span></section><p data-paragraph-id="28383" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="28383" data-sentence-id="28383" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_28383"><span class="ldml-cite">¶42</span></a></span> At the outset, <span class="ldml-entity">we</span> acknowledge that any question relating to the relief provided vis-à-vis HB 1172 has been rendered moot by <span class="ldml-entity">the bill</span>'s subsequent passage and <span class="ldml-entity">enactment</span> into law.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="28383" data-sentence-id="28565" class="ldml-sentence">But our inquiry doesn't end there because <span class="ldml-entity">the district court</span>'s final order applies to future <span class="ldml-entity">legislation</span> as well.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="28383" data-sentence-id="28679" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity">We</span> therefore must consider whether <span class="ldml-entity">the court</span> exceeded its authority in prescribing how <span class="ldml-entity">the legislature</span> must comport with the reading requirement in the future.</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="28838" class="ldml-paragraph "> <span data-paragraph-id="28838" data-sentence-id="28839" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_28839"><span class="ldml-cite">¶43</span></a></span> As relevant here, the separation of powers doctrine requires no less and permits no more than to have <span class="ldml-entity">us</span> interpret <span class="ldml-entity">the constitution</span> and determine <i class="ldml-italics">whether</i> <span class="ldml-entity">the legislature</span> complied with it.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="28838" data-sentence-id="29031" class="ldml-sentence">Consequently, while that doctrine confers upon <span class="ldml-entity">us</span> the prerogative and responsibility to decide that <span class="ldml-entity">the legislature</span> failed to comply with the reading requirement on <span class="ldml-entity">March 11, 2019</span>, it prohibits <span class="ldml-entity">us</span> from dictating to our coequal branch of government <i class="ldml-italics">how</i> to comply with the reading requirement moving forward.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="28838" data-sentence-id="29338" class="ldml-sentence">Under the <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_29338"><span class="ldml-cite">Colorado <span class="ldml-pagenumber" data-id="pagenumber_29357" data-page_type="bracketed_cite" data-rep="P.3d" data-vol="482" data-val="431"></span> Constitution</span></a></span>, <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"the judiciary's authority to coerce legislators to comply with constitutional provisions governing <span class="ldml-entity">the enactment of legislation</span> is exceedingly limited."</span></span> <span data-paragraph-id="28838" data-sentence-id="29526" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-refglobal="case:coloradocommoncausevbledsoe,810p2d,201,212colo1991lohr,j,concurringinpartanddissentinginpart" data-prop-ids="sentence_29338"><span class="ldml-refname"><i class="ldml-italics">Bledsoe</i></span> , <span class="ldml-cite">810 P.2d at 210</span></a></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="28838" data-sentence-id="29553" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity">We</span> have cautioned that in <span class="ldml-entity">cases</span> involving <span class="ldml-entity">the legislature</span>, <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"the judiciary's role in large part is limited to measuring <span class="ldml-entity">legislative enactments</span> against <span class="ldml-entity">the standard of <span class="ldml-entity">the constitution</span></span>, and declaring them null and void if <span class="ldml-entity">they</span> are violative of <span class="ldml-entity">the constitution</span>."</span></span> <span data-paragraph-id="28838" data-sentence-id="29814" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-refglobal="case:coloradocommoncausevbledsoe,810p2d,201,212colo1991lohr,j,concurringinpartanddissentinginpart" data-prop-ids="sentence_29553"><span class="ldml-cite"><i class="ldml-italics">Id.</i></span></a></span></span> <span data-paragraph-id="28838" data-sentence-id="29818" class="ldml-sentence">In line with that sentiment, the form or manner by which the General Assembly enacts <span class="ldml-entity">legislation</span> is part of its sole province.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="28838" data-sentence-id="29945" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-refglobal="case:inresenatebillno24,254p2dat857" data-prop-ids="sentence_29818"><span class="ldml-refname"><i class="ldml-italics">In re Senate Bill No. 24</i></span> , <span class="ldml-cite">254 P.2d at 857</span></a></span>.</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="29988" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="29988" data-sentence-id="29988" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_29988"><span class="ldml-cite">¶44</span></a></span> In its final order, <span class="ldml-entity">the district court</span> made permanent the preliminary injunction it had issued earlier and then granted <span class="ldml-entity">respondents</span>' <span class="ldml-entity">request for a declaratory judgment</span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="29988" data-sentence-id="30161" class="ldml-sentence">In so doing, <span class="ldml-entity">the court</span> directed <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"the Secretary of the Senate, upon a proper objection,"</span> to comply with the reading requirement by <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"employ<span class="ldml-parenthetical">[ing]</span> a methodology that is designed to read <span class="ldml-entity">legislation</span> in an intelligible and comprehensive manner, and at an understandable speed."</span></span> <span data-paragraph-id="29988" data-sentence-id="30433" class="ldml-sentence">It similarly instructed the Secretary of the Senate to <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"read <span class="ldml-entity">legislation</span>, including <span class="ldml-parenthetical">[HB 1172]</span>, in an intelligible manner and at an understandable speed."</span></span></p><p data-paragraph-id="30586" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="30586" data-sentence-id="30586" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_30586"><span class="ldml-cite">¶45</span></a></span> This part of <span class="ldml-entity">the district court</span>'s final order is problematic because it imposed parameters around the form or manner by which <span class="ldml-entity">the legislature</span> may conform to the reading requirement.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="30586" data-sentence-id="30772" class="ldml-sentence">It was not for <span class="ldml-entity">the district court</span> to spell out how to comply with the reading requirement.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="30586" data-sentence-id="30863" class="ldml-sentence">Doing so encroached on <span class="ldml-entity">the legislature</span>'s turf.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="30586" data-sentence-id="30910" class="ldml-sentence">Hence, although <span class="ldml-entity">we</span> agree with <span class="ldml-entity">the court</span>'s determination that the unintelligible sounds from the computers did not fulfill the reading requirement and thus violated <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_30910"><span class="ldml-cite">article V, section 22</span></a></span>, <span class="ldml-entity">we</span> disapprove of <span class="ldml-entity">the court</span>'s order to the extent it circumscribed the form or manner by which <span class="ldml-entity">the legislature</span> may comply with that requirement.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="30586" data-sentence-id="31241" class="ldml-sentence">Accordingly, <span class="ldml-entity">we</span> affirm in part and reverse in part.</span></p></div></div><div class="ldml-section"><section class="ldml-heading content__heading content__heading--depth1" data-ordinal_end="3" data-ordinal_start="3" data-format="upper_case_roman_numeral" data-types="conclusion" data-specifier="III" data-confidences="very_high" data-id="heading_31292" data-content-heading-label="III. Conclusion" data-parsed="true" data-value="III. Conclusion" id="heading_31292"><span data-paragraph-id="31292" class="ldml-paragraph "><b class="ldml-bold"><span data-paragraph-id="31292" data-sentence-id="31292" class="ldml-sentence">III.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="31292" data-sentence-id="31297" class="ldml-sentence">Conclusion</span></b></span></section><p data-paragraph-id="31307" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="31307" data-sentence-id="31307" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_31307"><span class="ldml-cite">¶46</span></a></span> The unintelligible sounds generated by the computers on the Senate floor on <span class="ldml-entity">March 11, 2019</span>, do not constitute <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"read<span class="ldml-parenthetical">[ing]</span>"</span> under <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_31307"><span class="ldml-cite">article V, section 22</span></a></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="31307" data-sentence-id="31462" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity">The district court</span> reached the same conclusion, and <span class="ldml-entity">we</span> affirm that part of the judgment.<a href="#note-fr9" class="ldml-noteanchor" id="note-ref-fr9">9</a></span> <span data-paragraph-id="31307" data-sentence-id="31551" class="ldml-sentence">But <span class="ldml-entity">we</span> reverse the judgment in part because <span class="ldml-entity">the district court</span> also impermissibly specified the form or manner by which <span class="ldml-entity">the legislature</span> must comply with the reading requirement.</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="31728" class="ldml-paragraph no-indent mt-4"><span class="ldml-opinionauthor"><span data-paragraph-id="31728" data-sentence-id="31728" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity">JUSTICE <span class="ldml-entity"><span class="ldml-judge">MÁRQUEZ</span></span> <span class="ldml-opiniontype">dissents</span></span>, and <span class="ldml-entity">JUSTICE <span class="ldml-entity">HOOD</span> and JUSTICE <span class="ldml-entity">HART</span> join in the dissent</span>.</span></span></p><p data-paragraph-id="31808" class="ldml-paragraph no-indent mt-4"><span class="ldml-opinionauthor"><span data-paragraph-id="31808" data-sentence-id="31808" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity">JUSTICE <span class="ldml-entity"><span class="ldml-judge">HOOD</span></span> <span class="ldml-opiniontype">dissents</span></span>, and <span class="ldml-entity">JUSTICE <span class="ldml-entity">MÁRQUEZ</span> and JUSTICE <span class="ldml-entity">HART</span> join in the dissent</span>.</span></span></p></div></div><div class="ldml-opinion"><p data-paragraph-id="31888" class="ldml-paragraph no-indent mt-4"><span class="ldml-opinionauthor content__heading content__heading--depth1" data-content-heading-label="Dissenting Opinion (MÁRQUEZ)"><span data-paragraph-id="31888" data-sentence-id="31888" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity">JUSTICE <span class="ldml-entity"><span class="ldml-judge">MÁRQUEZ</span></span>, <span class="ldml-opiniontype">dissenting</span></span>.</span></span></p><p data-paragraph-id="31916" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="31916" data-sentence-id="31916" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_31916"><span class="ldml-cite">¶47</span></a></span> I agree with the majority that it is our <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"solemn duty to interpret the laws."</span></span> <span data-paragraph-id="31916" data-sentence-id="31998" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-referencechain"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_31916"><span class="ldml-cite">Maj. op. ¶ 31</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-cert">quoting</span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-refglobal="case:inthematteroflegislativereapportionmentharoldsteinvthegeneralassemblyofthestateofcoloradono20240374p2d66,150colo380july6,1962" data-prop-ids="sentence_31916"><span class="ldml-refname"><i class="ldml-italics">In re Legis. Reapportionment</i></span> , <span class="ldml-cite">150 Colo. 380
</span>, <span class="ldml-cite">374 P.2d 66
, 68</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-date">1962</span>)</span></a></span> )</span></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="31916" data-sentence-id="32093" class="ldml-sentence">I further agree that <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"<span class="ldml-parenthetical">[w]</span>hether <span class="ldml-entity">the legislature</span> adhered to the reading requirement here hinges on our <span class="ldml-entity">interpretation of <span class="ldml-referencechain"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_32093"><span class="ldml-cite">article V, section 22</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">[of the <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_32093"><span class="ldml-cite">Colorado Constitution</span></a></span>]</span></span></span>."</span></span> <span data-paragraph-id="31916" data-sentence-id="32268" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_32093"><span class="ldml-cite"><i class="ldml-italics">Id.</i></span></a></span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference"><span class="ldml-cite">at ¶ 33</span></a></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="31916" data-sentence-id="32281" class="ldml-sentence">But I cannot join today's decision because the majority never actually interprets <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_32281"><span class="ldml-cite">article V, section 22</span></a></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="31916" data-sentence-id="32386" class="ldml-sentence">Instead, it simply declares that what <span class="ldml-entity">the legislature</span> did here violated that constitutional provision without explaining why.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="31916" data-sentence-id="32512" class="ldml-sentence">Accordingly, I respectfully dissent.</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="32548" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="32548" data-sentence-id="32548" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_32548"><span class="ldml-cite">¶48</span></a></span> The majority concludes that the computerized recitation of House <span class="ldml-entity">Bill</span> 1172 <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-quotation quote">"HB 1172"</span>)</span> on <span class="ldml-entity">March 11, 2019</span>, was not really a <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"reading"</span> of <span class="ldml-entity">the bill</span>—at least for purposes of <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_32548"><span class="ldml-cite">article V, section 22</span></a></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="32548" data-sentence-id="32745" class="ldml-sentence">But it does not explain why this is so, reasoning that its only task is to determine <i class="ldml-italics">whether</i> the reading requirement was met, <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"no more, no less."</span></span> <span data-paragraph-id="32548" data-sentence-id="32891" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_32745"><span class="ldml-cite"><i class="ldml-italics">Id.</i></span></a></span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference"><span class="ldml-cite">at ¶ 32</span></a></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="32548" data-sentence-id="32904" class="ldml-sentence">One is thus left to wonder what <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_32904"><span class="ldml-cite">article V, section 22</span></a></span> in fact requires.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="32548" data-sentence-id="32976" class="ldml-sentence">Must the words of <span class="ldml-entity">a bill</span> be <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"pronounced in their proper order?"</span></span> <span data-paragraph-id="32548" data-sentence-id="33040" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_32976"><span class="ldml-cite"><i class="ldml-italics">Id.</i></span></a></span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference"><span class="ldml-cite">at ¶ 36</span></a></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="32548" data-sentence-id="33053" class="ldml-sentence">Must listeners be able to <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"know <span class="ldml-pagenumber" data-id="pagenumber_33085" data-page_type="bracketed_cite" data-rep="P.3d" data-vol="482" data-val="432"></span> fully, comprehend, learn, discover, or understand the text"</span> of <span class="ldml-entity">the bill</span> being read?</span> <span data-paragraph-id="32548" data-sentence-id="33170" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_33053"><span class="ldml-cite"><i class="ldml-italics">Id.</i></span></a></span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference"><span class="ldml-cite">at ¶ 37</span></a></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="32548" data-sentence-id="33183" class="ldml-sentence">Must the reading be done in a manner consistent with what the majority identifies as the <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"animating purpose"</span> of the reading requirement?</span> <span data-paragraph-id="32548" data-sentence-id="33320" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_33183"><span class="ldml-cite"><i class="ldml-italics">Id.</i></span></a></span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference"><span class="ldml-cite">at ¶ 40</span></a></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="32548" data-sentence-id="33333" class="ldml-sentence">The majority hints at all these possibilities but does not clearly say which, if any, are constitutional requirements.</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="33451" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="33451" data-sentence-id="33451" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_33451"><span class="ldml-cite">¶49</span></a></span> In my view, the plain language of <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_33451"><span class="ldml-cite">article V, section 22</span></a></span> simply requires that <span class="ldml-entity">bills</span> be <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"read,"</span> or uttered aloud.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="33451" data-sentence-id="33567" class="ldml-sentence">Nothing more.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="33451" data-sentence-id="33581" class="ldml-sentence">The provision does not, for example, demand that <span class="ldml-entity">the bill</span> be read <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"by a human voice"</span> or <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"slowly enough to be intelligible,"</span> or that <span class="ldml-entity">the sections of the bill</span> be read <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"in sequence"</span> or even at a particular decibel level.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="33451" data-sentence-id="33799" class="ldml-sentence">Not only is this interpretation consistent with the plain language of the provision, but it also conforms with the history and purpose of the reading requirement and accords proper deference to actual legislative practice.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="33451" data-sentence-id="34022" class="ldml-sentence">Here, because the entirety of HB 1172 was, in fact, read aloud, <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_34022"><span class="ldml-cite">article V, section 22</span></a></span> was satisfied.</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="34122" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="34122" data-sentence-id="34122" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_34122"><span class="ldml-cite">¶50</span></a></span> In sum, today's decision is neither demanded by <span class="ldml-entity">the constitution</span> nor appropriate under separation of powers principles or <span class="ldml-entity">this court</span>'s traditional deference to <span class="ldml-entity"><span class="ldml-entity">the legislature</span>'s interpretations</span> of provisions that govern their internal processes.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="34122" data-sentence-id="34372" class="ldml-sentence">Moreover, I fear that, in addition to offering no guidance on what <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_34372"><span class="ldml-cite">article V, section 22</span></a></span> requires, the majority's ruling today also calls into question the constitutional validity of previous <span class="ldml-entity">legislation</span> enacted following readings similar to HB 1172.<a href="#note-fr_1" class="ldml-noteanchor" id="note-ref-fr_1">1</a></span> </p><div class="ldml-section"><section class="ldml-heading content__heading content__heading--depth1" data-id="heading_34623" data-format="upper_case_roman_numeral" data-specifier="I" data-ordinal_end="1" data-ordinal_start="1" data-content-heading-label="I. This Court's Role in Reviewing Constitutional Challenges" data-parsed="true" data-value="I. This Court's Role in Reviewing Constitutional Challenges" id="heading_34623"><span data-paragraph-id="34623" class="ldml-paragraph "><b class="ldml-bold"><span data-paragraph-id="34623" data-sentence-id="34623" class="ldml-sentence">I.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="34623" data-sentence-id="34626" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity">This Court</span>'s Role in Reviewing Constitutional Challenges</span></b></span></section><p data-paragraph-id="34682" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="34682" data-sentence-id="34682" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_34682"><span class="ldml-cite">¶51</span></a></span> I am concerned about the unduly limited role that the majority assigns <span class="ldml-entity">this court</span> in reviewing the constitutionality of <span class="ldml-entity">legislative action</span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="34682" data-sentence-id="34826" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity">We</span> have long understood that it is the <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"duty of the judicial department to say what the law is."</span></span> <span data-paragraph-id="34682" data-sentence-id="34923" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-refglobal="case:marburyvmadison,1cranch137,5us137,177,1803wl893,2led601803" data-prop-ids="sentence_34826"><span class="ldml-refname"><i class="ldml-italics">Marbury v. Madison</i></span> , <span class="ldml-cite">5 U.S. 137
</span>, <span class="ldml-cite">1 Cranch 137
</span>, <span class="ldml-cite">2 L.Ed. 60
</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-date">1803</span>)</span></a></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="34682" data-sentence-id="34989" class="ldml-sentence">But the majority suggests that it exceeds our authority to explain what <span class="ldml-entity">the constitution</span> demands or <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"how to comply with the reading requirement moving forward."</span></span> <span data-paragraph-id="34682" data-sentence-id="35150" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_34989"><span class="ldml-cite">Maj. op. ¶ 43</span></a></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="34682" data-sentence-id="35165" class="ldml-sentence">Instead, the majority concludes that <span class="ldml-entity">this court</span> is <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"permit<span class="ldml-parenthetical">[ted]</span> no more than to ... determine <i class="ldml-italics">whether</i> "</span> <span class="ldml-entity">the constitution</span> was violated.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="34682" data-sentence-id="35300" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_35165"><span class="ldml-cite"><i class="ldml-italics">Id</i></span></a></span> .</span> <span data-paragraph-id="34682" data-sentence-id="35305" class="ldml-sentence">Thus, while the majority correctly concludes that <span class="ldml-entity">we</span> are not precluded from reviewing <span class="ldml-entity">this case</span> under the political question doctrine, <span class="ldml-referencechain"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-signal">see</span> </i> <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_35305"><span class="ldml-cite"><i class="ldml-italics">id.</i></span></a></span></span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference"><span class="ldml-cite">at ¶ 31</span></a></span>, it strips that review of much of its significance by <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"abstain<span class="ldml-parenthetical">[ing]</span> from specifying"</span> what <span class="ldml-entity">the constitution</span> demands, <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_35305"><span class="ldml-cite"><i class="ldml-italics">id.</i></span></a></span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference"><span class="ldml-cite">at ¶ 32</span></a></span>.</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="35585" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="35585" data-sentence-id="35585" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_35585"><span class="ldml-cite">¶52</span></a></span> To be sure, <span class="ldml-entity">this court</span> must declare <i class="ldml-italics">whether</i> <span class="ldml-entity">the constitution</span> has been violated in a given case.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="35585" data-sentence-id="35685" class="ldml-sentence">But <span class="ldml-entity">we</span> also have a duty <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"to interpret <span class="ldml-entity">the constitution</span> and <i class="ldml-italics">say what the law is</i> ."</span></span> <span data-paragraph-id="35585" data-sentence-id="35767" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-referencechain"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-refglobal="case:coloradocommoncausevbledsoe,810p2d,201,212colo1991lohr,j,concurringinpartanddissentinginpart" data-prop-ids="sentence_35685"><span class="ldml-refname"><i class="ldml-italics">Colo. Common Cause v. Bledsoe</i></span> , <span class="ldml-cite">810 P.2d 201
, 206</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-court">Colo.</span> <span class="ldml-date">1991</span>)</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-cert">quoting</span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-refglobal="case:cologenassembvlamm,704p2d1371,1380colo1985hereinafterlammii" data-prop-ids="sentence_35685"><span class="ldml-refname"><i class="ldml-italics">Colo. Gen. Assembly v. Lamm</i></span> , <span class="ldml-cite">704 P.2d 1371
, 1378</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-court">Colo.</span> <span class="ldml-date">1985</span>)</span></a></span> )</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-referencenote">emphasis added</span>)</span></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="35585" data-sentence-id="35922" class="ldml-sentence">Indeed, interpretation of the law is <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"a function at the very core of the judicial role."</span></span> <span data-paragraph-id="35585" data-sentence-id="36011" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-refglobal="case:cologenassembvlamm,704p2d1371,1380colo1985hereinafterlammii" data-prop-ids="sentence_35922"><span class="ldml-refname"><i class="ldml-italics">Lamm</i></span> , <span class="ldml-cite">704 P.2d at 1379</span></a></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="35585" data-sentence-id="36036" class="ldml-sentence">By articulating what the law means and what it requires, <span class="ldml-entity">we</span> not only justify our determination as to whether the law has been violated in <span class="ldml-entity">the present case</span>, but also indicate how similar <span class="ldml-entity">cases</span> should be decided in the future.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="35585" data-sentence-id="36261" class="ldml-sentence"><i class="ldml-italics">See generally</i> <span class="ldml-entity">Karl Llewellyn</span>, <i class="ldml-italics">The Common Law Tradition: Deciding Appeals</i> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-entity">1960</span>)</span>.</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="36341" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="36341" data-sentence-id="36341" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_36341"><span class="ldml-cite">¶53</span></a></span> The majority cites to <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-refglobal="case:inreinterrogatoriesofgovernorregardingcertainbillsoffifty–firstgenassembly,195colo198,214,578p2d200,2111978carrigan,j,dissenting" data-prop-ids="sentence_36341"><span class="ldml-refname"><i class="ldml-italics">In re Interrogatories of Governor Regarding Certain Bills of Fifty-First General Assembly</i></span> , <span class="ldml-cite">195 Colo. 198
</span>, <span class="ldml-cite">578 P.2d 200
, 208</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-date">1978</span>)</span></a></span>, for the notion that <span class="ldml-entity">this court</span>'s role is limited to stating whether <span class="ldml-entity">legislation</span> was constitutionally enacted, <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"no more, no less."</span></span> <span data-paragraph-id="36341" data-sentence-id="36630" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_36341"><span class="ldml-cite">Maj. op. ¶ 32</span></a></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="36341" data-sentence-id="36645" class="ldml-sentence">But in <span class="ldml-entity">that case</span>, <span class="ldml-entity">we</span> made that determination by comparing <span class="ldml-entity">the legislature</span>'s actions to articulable standards imposed by <span class="ldml-entity">the constitution</span>:</span></p><blockquote data-paragraph-id="b_36782" class="ldml-blockquote"><span data-sentence-id="36782" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-parenthetical">[W]</span>hen the constitutional requirement can be complied with in a number of ways, our task is to determine whether the method actually chosen is in conformity.</span> <span data-sentence-id="36940" class="ldml-sentence"><i class="ldml-italics">The critical inquiry is</i> whether, during final passage, the members of the legislative body were afforded the opportunity to approve or disapprove the pending <span class="ldml-entity">bill</span> and whether this individual approval or disapproval was recorded in the official journal as mandated <span class="ldml-pagenumber" data-id="pagenumber_37204" data-page_type="bracketed_cite" data-rep="P.3d" data-vol="482" data-val="433"></span> by <span class="ldml-parenthetical">[ <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_36940"><span class="ldml-cite">article V, sections 22 – 23</span></a></span> of]</span> <span class="ldml-entity">the constitution</span>.</span></blockquote><p data-paragraph-id="37259" class="ldml-paragraph "> <span data-paragraph-id="37259" data-sentence-id="37260" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-referencechain"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-refglobal="case:senatefifty-firstgenassembly,578p2dat208"><span class="ldml-refname"><i class="ldml-italics">Fifty-First Gen. Assembly</i></span> , <span class="ldml-cite">578 P.2d at 208</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-referencenote">emphasis added</span>)</span></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="37259" data-sentence-id="37322" class="ldml-sentence">Here, the majority skips a step by <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"simply <span class="ldml-quotation quote">‘determin<span class="ldml-parenthetical">[ing]</span> whether the method actually chosen is in conformity’</span> "</span> without articulating the constitutional standards on which that determination is based.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="37259" data-sentence-id="37523" class="ldml-sentence"><i class="ldml-italics">See</i> maj. <span class="ldml-referencechain"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference"><span class="ldml-cite">op. ¶ 32</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-cert">quoting</span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-refglobal="case:senatefifty-firstgenassembly,578p2dat208" data-prop-ids="sentence_37523"><span class="ldml-refname"><i class="ldml-italics">Fifty-First Gen. Assembly</i></span> , <span class="ldml-cite">578 P.2d at 208</span></a></span> )</span></span>.<a href="#note-fr_2" class="ldml-noteanchor" id="note-ref-fr_2">2</a></span> </p><p data-paragraph-id="37597" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="37597" data-sentence-id="37597" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_37597"><span class="ldml-cite">¶54</span></a></span> Because the majority has declined to interpret the relevant language of <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_37597"><span class="ldml-cite">article V, section 22</span></a></span>, I now turn to that task.</span></p></div><div class="ldml-section"><section class="ldml-heading content__heading content__heading--depth1" data-id="heading_37720" data-format="upper_case_roman_numeral" data-specifier="II" data-ordinal_end="2" data-ordinal_start="2" data-content-heading-label="II. Principles of Constitutional Interpretation" data-parsed="true" data-value="II. Principles of Constitutional Interpretation" id="heading_37720"><span data-paragraph-id="37720" class="ldml-paragraph "><b class="ldml-bold"><span data-paragraph-id="37720" data-sentence-id="37720" class="ldml-sentence">II.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="37720" data-sentence-id="37724" class="ldml-sentence">Principles of Constitutional Interpretation</span></b></span></section><p data-paragraph-id="37767" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="37767" data-sentence-id="37767" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_37767"><span class="ldml-cite">¶55</span></a></span> When interpreting <span class="ldml-entity">the constitution</span>, <span class="ldml-entity">we</span> begin our analysis with the plain language of the provision at issue, giving terms their ordinary and popular meaning.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="37767" data-sentence-id="37929" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-referencechain"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-refglobal="case:inreinterrogatoryonhousejointresolution20–1006,2020co23" data-prop-ids="sentence_37767"><span class="ldml-refname"><i class="ldml-italics">In re Interrogatory on House Joint Resolution 20-1006</i></span> , <span class="ldml-cite">2020 CO 23
</span></a></span>, <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_37767"><span class="ldml-cite">¶ 30</span></a></span></span>, <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-refglobal="case:–––p3d––––"><span class="ldml-cite">––– P.3d ––––</span></a></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="37767" data-sentence-id="38018" class="ldml-sentence">If the language <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"is plain, its meaning clear, and no absurdity involved, constitutional provisions must be declared and enforced as written."</span></span> <span data-paragraph-id="37767" data-sentence-id="38160" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-refglobal="case:–––p3d––––"><span class="ldml-cite"><i class="ldml-italics">Id.</i></span></a></span> <span class="ldml-referencechain"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_38018"><span class="ldml-cite">at ¶ 31</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-cert">quoting</span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-refglobal="case:inreinterrogatoriesrelatingtothegreatoutdoorscoloradotrustfund,913p2d533,538colo1996" data-prop-ids="sentence_38018"><span class="ldml-refname"><i class="ldml-italics">In re Great Outdoors Colo. Tr. Fund</i></span> , <span class="ldml-cite">913 P.2d 533
, 538</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-court">Colo.</span> <span class="ldml-date">1996</span>)</span></a></span> )</span></span>.</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="38252" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="38252" data-sentence-id="38252" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_38252"><span class="ldml-cite">¶56</span></a></span> However, if there is ambiguity regarding <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"the proper interpretation of a constitutional provision relating to the course of procedure, it should be solved in favor of the practical construction given it by <span class="ldml-entity">the Legislature</span>."</span></span> <span data-paragraph-id="38252" data-sentence-id="38480" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-referencechain"><span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/893659975" data-vids="893659975" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_38252"><span class="ldml-refname"><i class="ldml-italics">Bd. of Comm'rs of Pueblo Cnty. v. Strait</i></span> , <span class="ldml-cite">36 Colo. 137
</span>, <span class="ldml-cite">85 P. 178
, 180</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-date">1906</span>)</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-cert">quoting</span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/899809610" data-vids="899809610" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_38252"><span class="ldml-refname"><i class="ldml-italics">Browning v. Powers</i></span> , <span class="ldml-cite">38 S.W. 943
, 945</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-court">Mo.</span> <span class="ldml-date">1897</span>)</span></a></span> )</span><span class="ldml-referenceseparator">;</span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-refglobal="case:inreinterrogatoriesrelatingtothegreatoutdoorscoloradotrustfund,913p2d533,538colo1996" data-prop-ids="embeddedsentence_38669,sentence_38252"><span class="ldml-refname"><i class="ldml-italics">Great Outdoors Colo. Tr. Fund</i></span> , <span class="ldml-cite">913 P.2d at 538</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-quotation quote"><span class="ldml-embeddedsentence">"Where possible, <span class="ldml-entity">courts</span> should adopt a construction of a constitutional provision in keeping with that given by coordinate branches of government."</span></span>)</span></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="38252" data-sentence-id="38819" class="ldml-sentence">Indeed, for well over a century, <span class="ldml-entity">we</span> have made clear that <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"<span class="ldml-entity">we</span> should show great deference to the legislative construction of <span class="ldml-entity">the Constitution</span>, particularly with reference to its construction of the procedure provided by <span class="ldml-entity">the Constitution</span> for the passage of <span class="ldml-entity">bills</span>."</span></span> <span data-paragraph-id="38252" data-sentence-id="39082" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-referencechain"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-refglobal="case:senatefifty-firstgenassembly,578p2dat208" data-prop-ids="sentence_38819"><span class="ldml-refname"><i class="ldml-italics">Fifty-First Gen. Assembly</i></span> , <span class="ldml-cite">578 P.2d at 208</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-cert">quoting</span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/893659975" data-vids="893659975" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_38819"><span class="ldml-refname"><i class="ldml-italics">Strait</i></span> , <span class="ldml-cite">85 P. at 179</span></a></span> )</span></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="38252" data-sentence-id="39160" class="ldml-sentence">Even if <span class="ldml-entity">we</span> have <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"serious doubts as to the correctness of the legislative practice, ... it is our duty to resolve the doubt in favor of the validity of <span class="ldml-entity">the act</span>"</span> unless the clear text of <span class="ldml-entity">the constitution</span> demands otherwise.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="38252" data-sentence-id="39381" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-referencechain"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-refglobal="case:senatefifty-firstgenassembly,578p2dat208" data-prop-ids="sentence_39160"><span class="ldml-cite"><i class="ldml-italics">Id.</i></span></a></span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-cert">quoting</span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/893659975" data-vids="893659975" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_39160"><span class="ldml-refname"><i class="ldml-italics">Strait</i></span> , <span class="ldml-cite">85 P. at 180</span></a></span> )</span></span>.</span></p></div><div class="ldml-section"><section class="ldml-heading content__heading content__heading--depth1" data-id="heading_39418" data-format="upper_case_roman_numeral" data-specifier="III" data-ordinal_end="3" data-ordinal_start="3" data-content-heading-label="III. The Plain Language of Article V, Section 22" data-parsed="true" data-value="III. The Plain Language of Article V, Section 22" id="heading_39418"><span data-paragraph-id="39418" class="ldml-paragraph "><b class="ldml-bold"><span data-paragraph-id="39418" data-sentence-id="39418" class="ldml-sentence">III.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="39418" data-sentence-id="39423" class="ldml-sentence">The Plain Language of <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_39423"><span class="ldml-cite">Article V, Section 22</span></a></span></span></b></span></section><p data-paragraph-id="39466" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="39466" data-sentence-id="39466" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_39466"><span class="ldml-cite">¶57 Article V, section 22</span></a></span> of our state <span class="ldml-entity">constitution</span> requires that <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"<span class="ldml-parenthetical">[e]</span>very <span class="ldml-entity">bill</span> shall be read by title when introduced, and at length on two different days in each house; provided, however, any reading at length may be dispensed with upon unanimous consent of the members present."</span></span> <span data-paragraph-id="39466" data-sentence-id="39748" class="ldml-sentence">Nothing in the plain language of this provision requires <span class="ldml-entity">the legislature</span> to read <span class="ldml-entity">bills</span> in a particular way; <span class="ldml-entity">the bills</span> simply must be <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"read."</span></span></p><p data-paragraph-id="39888" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="39888" data-sentence-id="39888" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_39888"><span class="ldml-cite">¶58</span></a></span> The word <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"read"</span> is a term of <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"extensive and various application."</span></span> <span data-paragraph-id="39888" data-sentence-id="39958" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity">Charles Richardson</span>, <i class="ldml-italics">New Dictionary of the English Language</i> 1567 <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-entity">1846</span>)</span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="39888" data-sentence-id="40030" class="ldml-sentence">The <span class="ldml-entity">1866</span> Edition of Webster's Dictionary, cited by the majority, alone contains more than a dozen definitions of the term.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="39888" data-sentence-id="40153" class="ldml-sentence"><i class="ldml-italics">See</i> <i class="ldml-italics">Read</i> , <i class="ldml-italics">A Dictionary of the English Language</i> 818 <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference"><span class="ldml-cite">10th ed. 1866</span></a></span>)</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">[https://perma.cc/BEZ8-CW9J]</span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="39888" data-sentence-id="40251" class="ldml-sentence">Some of these definitions are relevant while some—<span class="ldml-quotation quote">"to suppose; to guess,"</span> for example—are not.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="39888" data-sentence-id="40346" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-referencechain"><span class="ldml-signal"><i class="ldml-italics">See</i></span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_40251"><span class="ldml-cite"><i class="ldml-italics">id.</i></span></a></span></span></span></p><p data-paragraph-id="40353" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="40353" data-sentence-id="40353" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_40353"><span class="ldml-cite">¶59</span></a></span> Most dictionaries contemporaneous to the <span class="ldml-entity">1876</span> ratification of our state <span class="ldml-entity">constitution</span> define the term <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"read"</span> to mean, at least in part, something along the lines of <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"to speak it aloud."</span></span> <span data-paragraph-id="40353" data-sentence-id="40542" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-referencechain"><span class="ldml-signal"><i class="ldml-italics">See</i></span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_40542"><span class="ldml-refname">Richardson</span>, <span class="ldml-cite"><i class="ldml-italics">supra</i> , at 1567</span></a></span><span class="ldml-referenceseparator">;</span></span> <span class="ldml-entity">John Craig</span>, <i class="ldml-italics">Universal English Dictionary, Comprising <span class="ldml-pagenumber" data-id="pagenumber_40628" data-page_type="bracketed_cite" data-rep="P.3d" data-vol="482" data-val="434"></span> the Etymology, Definition, and Pronunciation of All Known Words in the Language, as Well as Technical Terms Used in Art, Science, Literature, Commerce, and Law</i> 518 <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-entity">1869</span>)</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(defining <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"read"</span> as <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"to give utterance to the sounds which written or printed words or characters represent"</span>)</span>; <span class="ldml-entity">John Bouvier</span> & <span class="ldml-entity">Daniel Gleason</span>, <i class="ldml-italics">Law Dictionary, Adapted to <span class="ldml-entity">the Constitution</span> and Laws of the United States of America, and of the Several States of the American Union: With References to the Civil and Other Systems of Foreign Law</i> 412 <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference"><span class="ldml-cite">14th ed. 1878</span></a></span>)</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(defining <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"reading"</span> as <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"<span class="ldml-entity">the act</span> of pronouncing aloud ... the contents of a writing or of a printed document"</span>)</span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="40353" data-sentence-id="41271" class="ldml-sentence">Given the uniformity of these definitions, <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"<span class="ldml-parenthetical">[i]</span>t cannot be maintained that the verb <span class="ldml-quotation quote">‘to read,’</span> in all its moods and tenses, when applied to <span class="ldml-entity">bills</span> for acts pending before legislative bodies, has acquired a purely technical signification which absolutely excludes its ordinary meaning."</span></span> <span data-paragraph-id="40353" data-sentence-id="41556" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-referencechain"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-refglobal="case:weillvkenfield,54cal111,1131880" data-prop-ids="sentence_41271"><span class="ldml-refname"><i class="ldml-italics">Weill v. Kenfield</i></span> , <span class="ldml-cite">54 Cal. 111
, 113</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-date">1880</span>)</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-referencenote">emphasis omitted</span>)</span></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="40353" data-sentence-id="41620" class="ldml-sentence">Put simply, the term <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"read"</span> as it is used in <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_41620"><span class="ldml-cite">article V, section 22</span></a></span> means nothing more than the ordinary act of uttering words aloud.</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="41752" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="41752" data-sentence-id="41752" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_41752"><span class="ldml-cite">¶60</span></a></span> The <span class="ldml-entity">1866</span> Webster's Dictionary cited by the majority is the only roughly contemporaneous dictionary I found that adds the proviso <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"in the proper order."</span></span> <span data-paragraph-id="41752" data-sentence-id="41908" class="ldml-sentence">And, as the majority notes, that language was later dropped from the <span class="ldml-entity">1890</span> edition of the same dictionary.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="41752" data-sentence-id="42014" class="ldml-sentence"><i class="ldml-italics">See</i> maj. <span class="ldml-referencechain"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference"><span class="ldml-cite">op. ¶ 37</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(citing Webster's International Dictionary 1194 <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-entity">1890</span>)</span>)</span></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="41752" data-sentence-id="42089" class="ldml-sentence">Modern dictionaries similarly decline to adopt a definition of <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"read"</span> that depends on pronouncing words in a particular sequence.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="41752" data-sentence-id="42219" class="ldml-sentence"><i class="ldml-italics">See, e.g.</i> , <i class="ldml-italics">Read</i> , Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary, <span class="ldml-parenthetical">[https://perma.cc/C83K-LB8E]</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(defining <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"read"</span> as <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"to utter aloud the printed or written words of"</span>)</span>.<a href="#note-fr_3" class="ldml-noteanchor" id="note-ref-fr_3">3</a></span> </p><p data-paragraph-id="42373" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="42373" data-sentence-id="42373" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_42373"><span class="ldml-cite">¶61</span></a></span> Accordingly, I conclude that the plain language of <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_42373"><span class="ldml-cite">article V, section 22</span></a></span> is unambiguous and requires only that every word of <span class="ldml-entity">the bill</span> at issue be uttered aloud.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="42373" data-sentence-id="42538" class="ldml-sentence">Because every word of HB 1172 was, in fact, recited aloud, the reading requirement in <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_42538"><span class="ldml-cite">article V, section 22</span></a></span> was met.<a href="#note-fr_4" class="ldml-noteanchor" id="note-ref-fr_4">4</a></span> <span data-paragraph-id="42373" data-sentence-id="42655" class="ldml-sentence">But even if the provision were ambiguous, I agree with Justice Hood that deference to <span class="ldml-entity">the legislature</span> demands that <span class="ldml-entity">we</span> respect the General Assembly's construction of the reading requirement.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="42373" data-sentence-id="42845" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-referencechain"><span class="ldml-signal"><i class="ldml-italics">See</i></span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_42655"><span class="ldml-refname">Hood, J., diss.</span> <span class="ldml-cite">op. ¶¶ 86–87</span></a></span></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="42373" data-sentence-id="42879" class="ldml-sentence">The purported purpose that the majority ascribes to <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_42879"><span class="ldml-cite">article V, section 22</span></a></span> does not justify reading language into the provision and contravening longstanding legislative practice.</span></p></div><div class="ldml-section"><section class="ldml-heading content__heading content__heading--depth1" data-id="heading_43057" data-format="upper_case_roman_numeral" data-specifier="IV" data-ordinal_end="4" data-ordinal_start="4" data-content-heading-label="IV. The History and Purpose of Article V, Section 22" data-parsed="true" data-value="IV. The History and Purpose of Article V, Section 22" id="heading_43057"><span data-paragraph-id="43057" class="ldml-paragraph "><b class="ldml-bold"><span data-paragraph-id="43057" data-sentence-id="43057" class="ldml-sentence">IV.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="43057" data-sentence-id="43061" class="ldml-sentence">The History and Purpose of <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_43061"><span class="ldml-cite">Article V, Section 22</span></a></span></span></b></span></section><p data-paragraph-id="43109" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="43109" data-sentence-id="43109" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_43109"><span class="ldml-cite">¶62</span></a></span> The majority concludes that the computerized reading of HB 1172 did not serve what it sees as the <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"animating purpose"</span> of <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_43109"><span class="ldml-cite">article V, section 22</span></a></span> : preventing hasty and ill-considered <span class="ldml-entity">legislation</span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="43109" data-sentence-id="43307" class="ldml-sentence"><i class="ldml-italics">See</i> maj. <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference"><span class="ldml-cite">op. ¶ 40</span></a></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="43109" data-sentence-id="43326" class="ldml-sentence">But this analysis of the reading requirement's purpose fails to consider the long history of that provision and its now-vestigial function of informing legislators of <span class="ldml-entity">a bill</span>'s contents when those legislators could not read <span class="ldml-entity">the bill</span> in question.</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="43570" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="43570" data-sentence-id="43570" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_43570"><span class="ldml-cite">¶63</span></a></span> The requirement that <span class="ldml-entity">a bill</span> receive multiple readings before <span class="ldml-entity">enactment</span> dates back to at least the 16th century in England.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="43570" data-sentence-id="43697" class="ldml-sentence"><i class="ldml-italics">See <span class="ldml-entity">Legislation</span> and Petitions</i> , The History of Parliament, https://www.historyofparliamentonline.org/volume/1604-1629/survey/xi-<span class="ldml-entity">legislation</span>-and-petitions <span class="ldml-parenthetical">[https://perma.cc/M3HW-VBX4]</span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="43570" data-sentence-id="43881" class="ldml-sentence">The reading requirement was instituted because, <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"before the age of print, and given the impracticality of producing multiple handwritten copies, the only means of informing Members of <span class="ldml-entity">a bill</span>'s contents had been for the clerk to read the text aloud."</span></span> <span class="ldml-pagenumber" data-id="pagenumber_44131" data-page_type="bracketed_cite" data-rep="P.3d" data-vol="482" data-val="435"></span></p><p data-paragraph-id="44131" class="ldml-paragraph "> <span data-paragraph-id="44131" data-sentence-id="44132" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-referencechain"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference"><span class="ldml-cite"><i class="ldml-italics">Id.</i></span></a></span> <span class="ldml-referenceseparator">;</span></span> <i class="ldml-italics">see also</i> <span class="ldml-entity">Jeremy Bentham</span>, <i class="ldml-italics">Essay on Political Tactics</i> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-entity">1791</span>)</span>, <i class="ldml-italics">reprinted in The Works of Jeremy Bentham </i><span class="ldml-referencechain"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference"><span class="ldml-cite"><i class="ldml-italics">Part VIII</i> 299, 353</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference"><span class="ldml-refname">John Bowring</span> <span class="ldml-cite">ed., 1839</span></a></span>)</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-quotation quote">"Before the invention of printing, and when the art of reading was unknown to three-fourths of the deputies of the nation, to supply this deficiency, it was directed that every <span class="ldml-entity">bill</span> should be read three times in the House."</span>)</span></span></span><span data-paragraph-id="44131" data-sentence-id="44508" class="ldml-sentence">.</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="44509" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="44509" data-sentence-id="44509" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_44509"><span class="ldml-cite">¶64</span></a></span> Many states enshrined this parliamentary procedure in constitutional provisions requiring that <span class="ldml-entity">bills</span> be read multiple times in <span class="ldml-entity">the legislature</span> prior to <span class="ldml-entity">enactment</span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="44509" data-sentence-id="44676" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-referencechain"><span class="ldml-signal"><i class="ldml-italics">See, e.g.</i></span> , <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_44509"><span class="ldml-cite">Ala. Const., § 63</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-referenceseparator">;</span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_44509"><span class="ldml-cite">Mich. Const. art. 4, § 26</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-referenceseparator">;</span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_44509"><span class="ldml-cite">N.J. Const. art. IV, § 4, ¶ 6</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-referenceseparator">;</span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_44509"><span class="ldml-cite">N.M. Const. art. IV, § 15</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-referenceseparator">;</span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_44509"><span class="ldml-refname">N.C. Const. art II</span>, <span class="ldml-cite">§ 22</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-referenceseparator">;</span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_44509"><span class="ldml-cite">Okla. Const. art. V, § 34</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-referenceseparator">;</span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_44509"><span class="ldml-cite">Tex. Const. art. III, § 32</span></a></span></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="44509" data-sentence-id="44879" class="ldml-sentence">However, by the time Colorado's <span class="ldml-entity">constitution</span> was ratified in <span class="ldml-entity">1876</span>, the <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"ancient practice"</span> of reading <span class="ldml-entity">bills</span> aloud had become more ceremonial than practical given that the <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"necessity for reading is superseded by printing."</span></span> <span data-paragraph-id="44509" data-sentence-id="45100" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity">Luther Stearns Cushing</span>, <i class="ldml-italics">Law and Practice of Legislative Assemblies in the United States of America</i> 837 <span class="ldml-referencechain"><span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-entity">1856</span>)</span><span class="ldml-referenceseparator">;</span> <span class="ldml-signal"><i class="ldml-italics">see also</i></span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_45100"><span class="ldml-cite">1 Sutherland Statutory Construction § 10:4</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(7th ed. <span class="ldml-entity">2020</span>)</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-quotation quote"><span class="ldml-embeddedsentence">"When literacy was not widespread it was common practice to read <span class="ldml-entity">bills</span> aloud to the assembled <span class="ldml-entity">legislature</span>.</span> <span class="ldml-embeddedsentence">Some members would not have had any other means to know what <span class="ldml-entity">they</span> were deciding.</span> <span class="ldml-embeddedsentence">As literacy rates have increased amongst elected representatives, though, there has been a commensurate decline in the historical need for reading aloud."</span></span>)</span><span class="ldml-referenceseparator">;</span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_45100"><span class="ldml-refname">Bentham</span>, <span class="ldml-cite"><i class="ldml-italics">supra</i> , at 353</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-quotation quote"><span class="ldml-embeddedsentence">"At the present day, <span class="ldml-parenthetical">[in <span class="ldml-entity">1791</span>,]</span> these three readings are purely nominal."</span></span>)</span></span></span><span data-paragraph-id="44509" data-sentence-id="45723" class="ldml-sentence">.</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="45724" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="45724" data-sentence-id="45724" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_45724"><span class="ldml-cite">¶65</span></a></span> Viewed in this historical context, it becomes clear that the reading requirement's function in preventing <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"hasty <span class="ldml-entity">legislation</span>"</span> was not to slow down the legislative process, but rather to inform illiterate legislators of <span class="ldml-entity">a bill</span>'s contents.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="45724" data-sentence-id="45966" class="ldml-sentence">Given the largely ceremonial nature of the reading requirement in the modern context, it is unsurprising that other states have given their respective constitutional reading requirements permissive interpretations.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="45724" data-sentence-id="46181" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-referencechain"><span class="ldml-signal"><i class="ldml-italics">See, e.g.</i></span> , <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/888348450" data-vids="888348450" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="embeddedsentence_46263,sentence_45966"><span class="ldml-refname"><i class="ldml-italics">Bevin v. Commonwealth ex rel. Beshear</i></span> , <span class="ldml-cite">563 S.W.3d 74
, 90</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-court">Ky.</span> <span class="ldml-date">2018</span>)</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-embeddedsentence">determining that <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"the common legislative practice of reading only the title of <span class="ldml-entity">the bill</span> and electronically publishing simultaneously the full text of <span class="ldml-entity">the bill</span> to the electronic legislative journal available on every legislator's desk satisfies the constitutional mandate"</span></span>)</span><span class="ldml-referenceseparator">;</span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/895257100" data-vids="895257100" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_45966"><span class="ldml-refname"><i class="ldml-italics">Gunn v. Hughes</i></span> , <span class="ldml-cite">210 So. 3d 969
, 974</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-court">Miss.</span> <span class="ldml-date">2017</span>)</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-referenceseparator">;</span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-refglobal="case:weillvkenfield,54cal111,1131880" data-prop-ids="sentence_45966"><span class="ldml-refname"><i class="ldml-italics">Weill</i></span> , <span class="ldml-cite">54 Cal. at 113–15</span></a></span></span>.</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="46615" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="46615" data-sentence-id="46615" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_46615"><span class="ldml-cite">¶66</span></a></span> In addition to the provision's history and purpose, there is another source that speaks to the dictates of <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_46615"><span class="ldml-cite">article V, section 22</span></a></span> : the consistent practice of the General Assembly in interpreting and implementing the reading requirement.</span></p></div><div class="ldml-section"><section class="ldml-heading content__heading content__heading--depth1" data-id="heading_46855" data-format="upper_case_roman_numeral" data-specifier="V" data-ordinal_end="5" data-ordinal_start="5" data-content-heading-label="V. Legislative Practice & Practical Effects" data-parsed="true" data-value="V. Legislative Practice & Practical Effects" id="heading_46855"><span data-paragraph-id="46855" class="ldml-paragraph "><b class="ldml-bold"><span data-paragraph-id="46855" data-sentence-id="46855" class="ldml-sentence">V.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="46855" data-sentence-id="46858" class="ldml-sentence">Legislative Practice & Practical Effects</span></b></span></section><p data-paragraph-id="46898" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="46898" data-sentence-id="46898" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_46898"><span class="ldml-cite">¶67</span></a></span> For decades, the General Assembly—under both Democratic and Republican control—has allowed for multi-voice, simultaneous reading of <span class="ldml-entity">bills</span> to comply with the reading requirement in <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_46898"><span class="ldml-cite">article V, section 22</span></a></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="46898" data-sentence-id="47105" class="ldml-sentence">For example, in <span class="ldml-entity">2003</span>, when a Democratic senator requested that a twenty-eight-page <span class="ldml-entity">bill</span> be read at length during debate over a legislative redistricting plan, the Republican majority complied with the request by enlisting fifteen <span class="ldml-entity">people</span> to read different pages from <span class="ldml-entity">the bill</span> simultaneously.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="46898" data-sentence-id="47396" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-referencechain"><span class="ldml-signal"><i class="ldml-italics">See</i></span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_47396"><span class="ldml-refname">John J. Sanko, <i class="ldml-italics">Redistricting Passes—Senate GOP Votes 18-0 For</i> , Rocky Mountain News</span>, <span class="ldml-date">May 6, 2003</span>, <span class="ldml-cite">at 12A</span></a></span></span>, NewsBank.<a href="#note-fr_5" class="ldml-noteanchor" id="note-ref-fr_5">5</a></span> <span data-paragraph-id="46898" data-sentence-id="47516" class="ldml-sentence">And in <span class="ldml-entity">2017</span>, when a Republican representative requested that the entire 600-page annual budget long <span class="ldml-entity">bill</span> be read at length, the Democratic majority complied by having <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"about a dozen"</span> staffers read different passages simultaneously, bringing the total reading time down to roughly half an hour.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="46898" data-sentence-id="47810" class="ldml-sentence"><i class="ldml-italics">See</i> <span class="ldml-entity">Vic Vela</span>, <i class="ldml-italics">Meet the <span class="ldml-entity">State Capitol</span>'s Reading Clerks, Two Guys Who Talk Really Really Fast</i> , CPR News <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-entity">May 1, 2017</span>)</span>, https://www.cpr.org/<span class="ldml-entity">2017</span>/05/01/meet-<span class="ldml-entity">the-state</span>-capitols-reading-clerks-two-guys-who-talk-really-really-fast <span class="ldml-parenthetical">[https://perma.cc/WF36-WWXL]</span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="46898" data-sentence-id="48065" class="ldml-sentence">These readings were likely just as cacophonous as was the reading of HB 1172, but <span class="ldml-entity">they</span> similarly reflect the form and manner in which <span class="ldml-entity">the legislature</span> has chosen to comply with the reading requirement.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="46898" data-sentence-id="48266" class="ldml-sentence">And it is specifically <span class="ldml-entity">the legislature</span>'s <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"construction of the procedure provided <span class="ldml-pagenumber" data-id="pagenumber_48347" data-page_type="bracketed_cite" data-rep="P.3d" data-vol="482" data-val="436"></span> by <span class="ldml-entity">the Constitution</span> for the passage of <span class="ldml-entity">bills</span>"</span> to which <span class="ldml-entity">we</span> traditionally <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"show great deference."</span></span> <span data-paragraph-id="46898" data-sentence-id="48444" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-referencechain"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-refglobal="case:senatefifty-firstgenassembly,578p2dat208" data-prop-ids="sentence_48266"><span class="ldml-refname"><i class="ldml-italics">Fifty-First Gen. Assembly</i></span> , <span class="ldml-cite">578 P.2d at 208</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-cert">quoting</span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/893659975" data-vids="893659975" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_48266"><span class="ldml-refname"><i class="ldml-italics">Strait</i></span> , <span class="ldml-cite">85 P. at 179</span></a></span> )</span></span>.</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="48521" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="48521" data-sentence-id="48521" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_48521"><span class="ldml-cite">¶68</span></a></span> What is more, requests for full-length readings are by no means infrequent; during the <span class="ldml-entity">2019</span> legislative session alone, there were at least fifteen such requests in the House and eighteen in the Senate.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="48521" data-sentence-id="48727" class="ldml-sentence"><i class="ldml-italics">See</i> <span class="ldml-entity">Marianne Goodland</span>, <i class="ldml-italics">A Look at the <span class="ldml-entity">2019</span> Colorado General Assembly—in Numbers</i> , Colorado Politics <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-entity">May 8, 2019</span>, updated <span class="ldml-entity">July 29, 2019</span>)</span>, https://www.coloradopolitics.com/hot-sheet/a-look-at-the-<span class="ldml-entity">2019</span>-colorado-general-assembly-in-numbers/<span class="ldml-entity">article</span>_bcc9e426-71ad-11e9-8f3e-331d07465c78.html <span class="ldml-parenthetical">[https://perma.cc/RGW6-5Z8R]</span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="48521" data-sentence-id="49043" class="ldml-sentence">Under the majority's <span class="ldml-entity">interpretation of <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_49043"><span class="ldml-cite">article V, section 22</span></a></span></span>, such readings may take up an increasingly substantial portion of the General Assembly's 120-day session, limiting the work that our <span class="ldml-entity">legislature</span> can accomplish.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="48521" data-sentence-id="49265" class="ldml-sentence">The framers of our <span class="ldml-entity">constitution</span> were likely <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"not intent upon burdening <span class="ldml-entity">the legislature</span> with such an absurd waste of time."</span></span> <span data-paragraph-id="48521" data-sentence-id="49388" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/888348450" data-vids="888348450" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_49265"><span class="ldml-refname"><i class="ldml-italics">Bevin</i></span> , <span class="ldml-cite">563 S.W.3d at
90</span></a></span>.</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="49413" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="49413" data-sentence-id="49413" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_49413"><span class="ldml-cite">¶69</span></a></span> Finally, I am concerned about the implications of the majority's ruling today for other <span class="ldml-entity">bills</span> read in a similar manner to HB 1172.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="49413" data-sentence-id="49548" class="ldml-sentence">Though it avoids <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"dictating the specifics of <i class="ldml-italics">how</i> <span class="ldml-entity">the legislature</span> might comply with the reading requirement,"</span> maj. <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference"><span class="ldml-cite">op. ¶ 3</span></a></span>, today's decision calls into question other <span class="ldml-entity">bills</span> that were read by multiple voices or may have been unintelligible to listeners on the House or Senate floor.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="49413" data-sentence-id="49829" class="ldml-sentence">For example, the reading of the <span class="ldml-entity">2017</span> budget long <span class="ldml-entity">bill</span> was, if anything, <i class="ldml-italics">less</i> intelligible than the reading of HB 1172; only one of the readers had access to a microphone and the other dozen or so readers were entirely inaudible and unintelligible.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="49413" data-sentence-id="50077" class="ldml-sentence"><i class="ldml-italics">See</i> Colorado Channel, <i class="ldml-italics">Colorado House <span class="ldml-entity">2017</span> Legislative Day <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_50077"><span class="ldml-cite">86 Part 2</span></a></span></i> , https://youtu.be/-n2btwYD6x8?t=30836.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="49413" data-sentence-id="50185" class="ldml-sentence">Does today's decision imply that all appropriations made by <span class="ldml-entity">the state</span> in <span class="ldml-entity">2017</span> were unconstitutional?</span> <span data-paragraph-id="49413" data-sentence-id="50286" class="ldml-sentence">The majority's conclusion certainly suggests this possibility.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="49413" data-sentence-id="50349" class="ldml-sentence">Today's ruling casts a pall of uncertainty over any number of <span class="ldml-entity">legislative enactments</span> without providing standards under which to judge their constitutionality.</span></p></div><div class="ldml-section"><section class="ldml-heading content__heading content__heading--depth1" data-ordinal_end="6" data-ordinal_start="6" data-format="upper_case_roman_numeral" data-types="conclusion" data-specifier="VI" data-confidences="very_high" data-id="heading_50507" data-content-heading-label="VI. Conclusion" data-parsed="true" data-value="VI. Conclusion" id="heading_50507"><span data-paragraph-id="50507" class="ldml-paragraph "><b class="ldml-bold"><span data-paragraph-id="50507" data-sentence-id="50507" class="ldml-sentence">VI.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="50507" data-sentence-id="50511" class="ldml-sentence">Conclusion</span></b></span></section><p data-paragraph-id="50521" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="50521" data-sentence-id="50521" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_50521"><span class="ldml-cite">¶70</span></a></span> I disagree with the majority's conclusion that the General Assembly violated <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_50521"><span class="ldml-cite">article V, section 22 of the Colorado Constitution</span></a></span> by having multiple computers simultaneously read aloud the full text of HB 1172.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="50521" data-sentence-id="50734" class="ldml-sentence">But I am more concerned with the precedent set today.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="50521" data-sentence-id="50788" class="ldml-sentence">As the majority notes, the conflict over HB 1172 is essentially moot.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="50521" data-sentence-id="50858" class="ldml-sentence">But by declining to articulate what <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_50858"><span class="ldml-cite">article V, section 22</span></a></span> demands, the majority has more or less assured that more conflict over the reading requirement will occur in the future.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="50521" data-sentence-id="51037" class="ldml-sentence">While the majority may be able to avoid <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"say<span class="ldml-parenthetical">[ing]</span> what the law is"</span> today, <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-refglobal="case:marburyvmadison,1cranch137,5us137,177,1803wl893,2led601803" data-prop-ids="sentence_51037"><span class="ldml-refname"><i class="ldml-italics">Marbury</i></span> , <span class="ldml-cite">5 U.S. at
177</span></a></span>, <span class="ldml-entity">this court</span> will have to do so at some point in the future.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="50521" data-sentence-id="51195" class="ldml-sentence">When it does, I hope it accords appropriate weight to the plain language, history, and consistent legislative practice concerning <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_51195"><span class="ldml-cite">article V, section 22</span></a></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="50521" data-sentence-id="51348" class="ldml-sentence">Because the majority has not done that today, I respectfully dissent.</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="51417" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="51417" data-sentence-id="51417" class="ldml-sentence">I am authorized to state that JUSTICE HOOD and JUSTICE HART join in this dissent.</span></p></div></div><div class="ldml-opinion"><p data-paragraph-id="51498" class="ldml-paragraph no-indent mt-4"><span class="ldml-opinionauthor content__heading content__heading--depth1" data-content-heading-label="Dissenting Opinion (HOOD)"><span data-paragraph-id="51498" data-sentence-id="51498" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity">JUSTICE <span class="ldml-entity"><span class="ldml-judge">HOOD</span></span>, <span class="ldml-opiniontype">dissenting</span></span>.</span></span></p><p data-paragraph-id="51523" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="51523" data-sentence-id="51523" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_51523"><span class="ldml-cite">¶71</span></a></span> I agree with Justice Márquez's dissent, but I write separately to make three additional points.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="51523" data-sentence-id="51623" class="ldml-sentence">First, although <span class="ldml-entity">this court</span> has repeatedly paid lip service to <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/890249034" data-vids="890249034" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_51623"><span class="ldml-refname"><i class="ldml-italics">Baker v. Carr</i></span> , <span class="ldml-cite">369 U.S. 186
</span>, <span class="ldml-cite">82 S.Ct. 691
</span>, <span class="ldml-cite">7 L.Ed.2d 663
</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-date">1962</span>)</span></a></span>, <span class="ldml-entity">that case</span> does not control political question analysis under the <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_51623"><span class="ldml-cite">Colorado Constitution</span></a></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="51523" data-sentence-id="51839" class="ldml-sentence">Second, to the extent that the word <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"read"</span> is ambiguous, the majority fails to implement Colorado's homegrown separation-of-powers jurisprudence by showing insufficient deference to the Senate's interpretation of a constitutional provision governing the internal affairs of the legislative branch.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="51523" data-sentence-id="52137" class="ldml-sentence">Third, I agree with the majority that <span class="ldml-entity">courts</span> cannot restrain the General Assembly from passing <span class="ldml-entity">a bill</span> absent extraordinary circumstances, but I would reach the issue of whether a pre-<span class="ldml-entity">enactment</span> injunction was justified here.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="51523" data-sentence-id="52361" class="ldml-sentence">It was not.</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="52372" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="52372" data-sentence-id="52372" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_52372"><span class="ldml-cite">¶72</span></a></span> Overall, my concern is this: The majority lauds the separation-of-powers doctrine but minimizes it in practice by authorizing <span class="ldml-entity">courts</span> to decide all <span class="ldml-entity">cases</span> involving constitutional interpretation <i class="ldml-italics">and</i> to review the General <span class="ldml-pagenumber" data-id="pagenumber_52595" data-page_type="bracketed_cite" data-rep="P.3d" data-vol="482" data-val="437"></span> Assembly's implementation of constitutional procedures de novo.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="52372" data-sentence-id="52660" class="ldml-sentence">Separation of powers demands more than the majority's rule that <span class="ldml-entity">courts</span> can't tell the legislative branch what <i class="ldml-italics">to</i> do but can tell it what <i class="ldml-italics">not</i> to do.</span></p><div class="ldml-section"><section class="ldml-heading content__heading content__heading--depth1" data-id="heading_52807" data-format="upper_case_roman_numeral" data-specifier="I" data-ordinal_end="1" data-ordinal_start="1" data-content-heading-label="I. Baker v. Carr" data-parsed="true" data-value="I. Baker v. Carr" id="heading_52807"><span data-paragraph-id="52807" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="52807" data-sentence-id="52807" class="ldml-sentence"><b class="ldml-bold"><span class="ldml-entity">I. <span class="ldml-embeddedsentence"><i class="ldml-italics">Baker</i></span></span><i class="ldml-italics"> <span class="ldml-embeddedsentence">v. Carr</span></i></b></span></span></section><p data-paragraph-id="52823" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="52823" data-sentence-id="52823" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_52823"><span class="ldml-cite">¶73</span></a></span> The majority begins its justiciability analysis by noting that the <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"the meaningful utility of <span class="ldml-parenthetical">[the six <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/890249034" data-vids="890249034" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_52823"><span class="ldml-refname"><i class="ldml-italics">Baker</i></span></a></span> ]</span> characteristics has been questioned by well-respected legal scholars."</span></span> <span data-paragraph-id="52823" data-sentence-id="53009" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_52823"><span class="ldml-cite">Maj. op. ¶ 24</span></a></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="52823" data-sentence-id="53024" class="ldml-sentence">The majority also recognizes that, <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"<span class="ldml-parenthetical">[h]</span>elpful or not, the <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/890249034" data-vids="890249034" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_53024"><span class="ldml-refname"><i class="ldml-italics">Baker</i></span></a></span> characteristics cannot be mechanically applied here because <span class="ldml-entity"><span class="ldml-entity">Colorado district</span> courts</span>, unlike their federal counterparts, are <span class="ldml-entity">courts</span> of general jurisdiction."</span></span> <span data-paragraph-id="52823" data-sentence-id="53246" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_53024"><span class="ldml-cite"><i class="ldml-italics">Id.</i></span></a></span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference"><span class="ldml-cite">at ¶ 25</span></a></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="52823" data-sentence-id="53259" class="ldml-sentence">The majority even quotes Justice Brennan's admonition that <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"<span class="ldml-entity">state courts</span> that rest their decisions ... on state law need not apply federal principles of ... justiciability."</span></span> <span data-paragraph-id="52823" data-sentence-id="53433" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-referencechain"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="embeddedsentence_53437,sentence_53259"><span class="ldml-cite"><i class="ldml-italics">Id.</i></span></a></span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical"><span class="ldml-embeddedsentence">(<span class="ldml-cert">quoting</span> </span><span class="ldml-embeddedsentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_53259"><span class="ldml-refname">William J. Brennan, Jr., <i class="ldml-italics">State Constitutions and the Protection of Individual Rights</i></span> , <span class="ldml-cite">90 Harv. L. Rev. 489
, 501</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-date">1977</span>)</span></a></span></span> )</span></span>.</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="53568" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="53568" data-sentence-id="53568" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_53568"><span class="ldml-cite">¶74</span></a></span> Despite this, the majority seems to hold its nose because <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"<span class="ldml-entity">we</span> have consistently considered the characteristics outlined in <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/890249034" data-vids="890249034" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_53568"><span class="ldml-refname"><i class="ldml-italics">Baker</i></span></a></span> in our previous forays into the realm of justiciability."</span></span> <span data-paragraph-id="53568" data-sentence-id="53759" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_53568"><span class="ldml-cite"><i class="ldml-italics">Id.</i></span></a></span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference"><span class="ldml-cite">at ¶ 26</span></a></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="53568" data-sentence-id="53772" class="ldml-sentence">Yet the majority doesn't examine how the six <span class="ldml-entity"><span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/890249034" data-vids="890249034" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_53772"><span class="ldml-refname"><i class="ldml-italics">Baker</i></span></a></span> factors</span> would apply here.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="53568" data-sentence-id="53849" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-referencechain"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-signal">See</span> </i> <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_53772"><span class="ldml-cite"><i class="ldml-italics">id.</i></span></a></span></span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference"><span class="ldml-cite">at ¶¶ 26–30</span></a></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="53568" data-sentence-id="53871" class="ldml-sentence">Instead, it simply reasons by analogy, holding that there's no <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/890249034" data-vids="890249034" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_53871"><span class="ldml-refname"><i class="ldml-italics">Baker</i></span></a></span> problem in <span class="ldml-entity">this case</span> because there wasn't one in <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-refglobal="case:coloradocommoncausevbledsoe,810p2d,201,212colo1991lohr,j,concurringinpartanddissentinginpart" data-prop-ids="sentence_53871"><span class="ldml-refname"><i class="ldml-italics">Colorado Common Cause v. Bledsoe</i></span> , <span class="ldml-cite">810 P.2d 201
, 205–06</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-court">Colo.</span> <span class="ldml-date">1991</span>)</span></a></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="53568" data-sentence-id="54059" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_53871"><span class="ldml-cite">Maj. op. ¶¶ 26–30</span></a></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="53568" data-sentence-id="54078" class="ldml-sentence">The majority's justiciability analysis ends by labeling <span class="ldml-entity">the parties</span>' dispute as a matter of <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"constitutional interpretation,"</span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_54078"><span class="ldml-cite"><i class="ldml-italics">id.</i></span></a></span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference"><span class="ldml-cite">at ¶ 30</span></a></span>, which is something <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"peculiarly <span class="ldml-parenthetical">[within]</span> the province of the judiciary,"</span> <span class="ldml-referencechain"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_54078"><span class="ldml-cite"><i class="ldml-italics">id.</i></span></a></span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-cert">quoting</span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-refglobal="case:coloradocommoncausevbledsoe,810p2d,201,212colo1991lohr,j,concurringinpartanddissentinginpart" data-prop-ids="sentence_54078"><span class="ldml-refname"><i class="ldml-italics">Bledsoe</i></span> , <span class="ldml-cite">810 P.2d at 206</span></a></span> )</span></span>.</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="54329" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="54329" data-sentence-id="54329" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_54329"><span class="ldml-cite">¶75</span></a></span> Sure, the majority reaches the right result on justiciability: Questions of constitutional interpretation—even those affecting the procedures of another branch—are justiciable under Colorado law.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="54329" data-sentence-id="54529" class="ldml-sentence">But <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/890249034" data-vids="890249034" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_54529"><span class="ldml-refname"><i class="ldml-italics">Baker</i></span></a></span> isn't why.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="54329" data-sentence-id="54550" class="ldml-sentence">On the contrary, <span class="ldml-entity"><span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/890249034" data-vids="890249034" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_54550"><span class="ldml-refname"><i class="ldml-italics">Baker</i></span></a></span> factors</span> exist to tell <span class="ldml-entity">federal courts</span> when constitutional interpretation <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"is entrusted to one of the political branches,"</span> so the majority can't be right to say that an issue is justiciable <i class="ldml-italics">because</i> it involves constitutional interpretation.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="54329" data-sentence-id="54812" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-referencechain"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-refglobal="case:ruchovcommoncause,588us684,729–32,139sct2484,2513–2514,204led2d9312019kagan,j,dissenting" data-prop-ids="sentence_54550"><span class="ldml-refname"><i class="ldml-italics">Rucho v. Common Cause</i></span> , <span class="ldml-cite">––– U.S. ––––</span>, <span class="ldml-cite">139 S. Ct. 2484
, 2494</span>, <span class="ldml-cite">204 L.Ed.2d 931
</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-date">2019</span>)</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-cert">quoting</span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/886387814" data-vids="886387814" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_54550"><span class="ldml-refname"><i class="ldml-italics">Vieth v. Jubelirer</i></span> , <span class="ldml-cite">541 U.S. 267
, 277</span>, <span class="ldml-cite">124 S.Ct. 1769
</span>, <span class="ldml-cite">158 L.Ed.2d 546
</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-date">2004</span>)</span></a></span> )</span></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="54329" data-sentence-id="54988" class="ldml-sentence">The threshold question that <span class="ldml-entity">the <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/890249034" data-vids="890249034" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_54988"><span class="ldml-refname"><i class="ldml-italics">Baker</i></span></a></span> factors</span> seek to answer is <i class="ldml-italics">who</i> should make the call.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="54329" data-sentence-id="55078" class="ldml-sentence">Yet that's not how <span class="ldml-entity">we</span>'ve used it, at least not in earnest.</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="55136" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="55136" data-sentence-id="55136" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_55136"><span class="ldml-cite">¶76</span></a></span> More typically, <span class="ldml-entity">we</span> invoke <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/890249034" data-vids="890249034" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_55136"><span class="ldml-refname"><i class="ldml-italics">Baker</i></span></a></span> , breeze past it, and then come home to our rule that <span class="ldml-entity">Colorado courts</span> are free to decide even seemingly political questions under the <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_55136"><span class="ldml-cite">Colorado Constitution</span></a></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="55136" data-sentence-id="55329" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-refglobal="case:coloradocommoncausevbledsoe,810p2d,201,212colo1991lohr,j,concurringinpartanddissentinginpart" data-prop-ids="sentence_55329"><span class="ldml-refname"><i class="ldml-italics">Bledsoe</i></span></a></span> is a perfect example.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="55136" data-sentence-id="55359" class="ldml-sentence">In <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-refglobal="case:coloradocommoncausevbledsoe,810p2d,201,212colo1991lohr,j,concurringinpartanddissentinginpart" data-prop-ids="sentence_55359"><span class="ldml-refname"><i class="ldml-italics">Bledsoe</i></span></a></span> , <span class="ldml-entity">this court</span> recited <span class="ldml-entity">the <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/890249034" data-vids="890249034" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_55359"><span class="ldml-refname"><i class="ldml-italics">Baker</i></span></a></span> factors</span>, summarily concluded that <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"<span class="ldml-entity">we</span> do not find present any of the <span class="ldml-parenthetical">[ <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/890249034" data-vids="890249034" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_55359"><span class="ldml-refname"><i class="ldml-italics">Baker</i></span></a></span> ]</span> political-question characteristics,"</span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-refglobal="case:coloradocommoncausevbledsoe,810p2d,201,212colo1991lohr,j,concurringinpartanddissentinginpart" data-prop-ids="sentence_55359"><span class="ldml-cite">810 P.2d at 206</span></a></span>, and landed on the principle that <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"it is peculiarly the province of the judiciary to interpret <span class="ldml-entity">the constitution</span>,"</span> <span class="ldml-referencechain"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-refglobal="case:coloradocommoncausevbledsoe,810p2d,201,212colo1991lohr,j,concurringinpartanddissentinginpart" data-prop-ids="sentence_55359"><span class="ldml-cite"><i class="ldml-italics">id.</i></span></a></span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-cert">quoting</span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-refglobal="case:cologenassembvlamm,704p2d1371,1380colo1985hereinafterlammii" data-prop-ids="sentence_55359"><span class="ldml-refname"><i class="ldml-italics">Colo. Gen. Assembly v. Lamm</i></span> , <span class="ldml-cite">704 P.2d 1371
, 1378</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-court">Colo.</span> <span class="ldml-date">1985</span>)</span></a></span> )</span></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="55136" data-sentence-id="55726" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-referencechain"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-signal">See also</span> </i> <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/886244059" data-vids="886244059" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="embeddedsentence_55793,sentence_55359"><span class="ldml-refname"><i class="ldml-italics">Busse v. City of Golden</i></span> , <span class="ldml-cite">73 P.3d 660
, 664</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-court">Colo.</span> <span class="ldml-date">2003</span>)</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-embeddedsentence">devoting two sentences to paraphrasing the first three <span class="ldml-entity"><span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/890249034" data-vids="890249034" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_55359"><span class="ldml-refname"><i class="ldml-italics">Baker</i></span></a></span> factors</span> and to finding that <span class="ldml-entity">they</span> weren't present</span>)</span><span class="ldml-referenceseparator">;</span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-refglobal="case:meyervlammno92sa472846p2d862feb22,1993" data-prop-ids="embeddedsentence_55953,sentence_55359"><span class="ldml-refname"><i class="ldml-italics">Meyer v. Lamm</i></span> , <span class="ldml-cite">846 P.2d 862
, 873</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-court">Colo.</span> <span class="ldml-date">1993</span>)</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-embeddedsentence">listing <span class="ldml-entity">the <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/890249034" data-vids="890249034" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_55359"><span class="ldml-refname"><i class="ldml-italics">Baker</i></span></a></span> factors</span>, mentioning that the first factor was absent, and concluding that <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"none of the other <span class="ldml-entity"><span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/890249034" data-vids="890249034" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_55359"><span class="ldml-refname"><i class="ldml-italics">Baker v. Carr</i></span></a></span> factors</span> of nonjusticiability are implicated"</span></span>)</span></span>.</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="56124" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="56124" data-sentence-id="56124" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_56124"><span class="ldml-cite">¶77</span></a></span> And today the majority repeats the mistake, just when it seemed that <span class="ldml-entity">we</span> had kicked the habit.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="56124" data-sentence-id="56222" class="ldml-sentence">In <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-refglobal="case:seelobatovstate,218p3d358,371colo2009lobatoi" data-prop-ids="sentence_56222"><span class="ldml-refname"><i class="ldml-italics">Lobato v. State</i></span> , <span class="ldml-cite">218 P.3d 358
, 363</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-court">Colo.</span> <span class="ldml-date">2009</span>)</span></a></span>, our most recent political question case, <span class="ldml-entity">we</span> noted that <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"<span class="ldml-parenthetical">[w]</span>e have never applied the political question doctrine to avoid deciding a constitutional question."</span><a href="#note-fr_1" class="ldml-noteanchor" id="note-ref-fr_1">1</a></span> <span class="ldml-pagenumber" data-id="pagenumber_56433" data-page_type="bracketed_cite" data-rep="P.3d" data-vol="482" data-val="438"></span></p><p data-paragraph-id="56433" class="ldml-paragraph "> <span data-paragraph-id="56433" data-sentence-id="56434" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity">We</span> described <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/890249034" data-vids="890249034" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_56434"><span class="ldml-refname"><i class="ldml-italics">Baker</i></span></a></span> as having articulated <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"the <i class="ldml-italics">federal</i> political question criteria"</span> and held that <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"the <span class="ldml-entity"><span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/890249034" data-vids="890249034" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_56434"><span class="ldml-refname"><i class="ldml-italics">Baker</i></span></a></span> test</span> does not apply"</span> to claims under the <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_56434"><span class="ldml-cite">Colorado Constitution</span></a></span>'s guarantee of a <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"thorough and uniform"</span> public school system.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="56433" data-sentence-id="56667" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-referencechain"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-refglobal="case:seelobatovstate,218p3d358,371colo2009lobatoi" data-prop-ids="sentence_56434"><span class="ldml-cite"><i class="ldml-italics">Id.</i> at 367–68</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-referencenote">emphasis added</span>)</span></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="56433" data-sentence-id="56699" class="ldml-sentence">The <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-refglobal="case:seelobatovstate,218p3d358,371colo2009lobatoi" data-prop-ids="sentence_56699"><span class="ldml-refname"><i class="ldml-italics">Lobato</i></span></a></span> dissent accurately recognized <span class="ldml-entity">the case</span> as <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"either an abandonment of the political question doctrine writ large or a more limited refusal to apply <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/890249034" data-vids="890249034" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_56699"><span class="ldml-refname"><i class="ldml-italics">Baker</i></span></a></span> to decide political questions."</span></span> <span data-paragraph-id="56433" data-sentence-id="56894" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-refglobal="case:seelobatovstate,218p3d358,371colo2009lobatoi" data-prop-ids="sentence_56699"><span class="ldml-cite"><i class="ldml-italics">Id.</i> at 377 n.2</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(Rice, J., dissenting)</span></a></span>.</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="56932" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="56932" data-sentence-id="56932" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_56932"><span class="ldml-cite">¶78</span></a></span> Admittedly, <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-refglobal="case:seelobatovstate,218p3d358,371colo2009lobatoi" data-prop-ids="sentence_56932"><span class="ldml-refname"><i class="ldml-italics">Lobato</i></span></a></span> involved the unusual circumstance of an affirmative right, but our critique of <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/890249034" data-vids="890249034" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_56932"><span class="ldml-refname"><i class="ldml-italics">Baker</i></span></a></span> didn't turn on that fact.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="56932" data-sentence-id="57066" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-referencechain"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-signal">See</span> </i> <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-refglobal="case:seelobatovstate,218p3d358,371colo2009lobatoi" data-prop-ids="sentence_56932"><span class="ldml-cite"><i class="ldml-italics">id.</i> at 369–71</span></a></span></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="56932" data-sentence-id="57086" class="ldml-sentence">In addition to the criticisms repeated by the majority opinion, <span class="ldml-entity">we</span> said that <span class="ldml-entity">the Court</span>'s way of identifying unmanageable standards was itself unmanageable and <span class="ldml-entity">we</span> highlighted our power to render advisory opinions on questions submitted by <span class="ldml-entity">the legislature</span> or executive.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="56932" data-sentence-id="57354" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-refglobal="case:seelobatovstate,218p3d358,371colo2009lobatoi" data-prop-ids="sentence_57086"><span class="ldml-cite"><i class="ldml-italics">Id.</i> at 369–70</span></a></span>.</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="57368" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="57368" data-sentence-id="57368" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_57368"><span class="ldml-cite">¶79</span></a></span> Today, the majority misses an opportunity to clean up the law by admitting that, despite our professed <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(but at best inconsistent)</span> fealty to <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/890249034" data-vids="890249034" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_57368"><span class="ldml-refname"><i class="ldml-italics">Baker</i></span></a></span> , it does not dictate the justiciability of political questions under Colorado law.</span></p></div><div class="ldml-section"><section class="ldml-heading content__heading content__heading--depth1" data-id="heading_57601" data-format="upper_case_roman_numeral" data-specifier="II" data-ordinal_end="2" data-ordinal_start="2" data-content-heading-label="II. Insufficient Deference" data-parsed="true" data-value="II. Insufficient Deference" id="heading_57601"><span data-paragraph-id="57601" class="ldml-paragraph "><b class="ldml-bold"><span data-paragraph-id="57601" data-sentence-id="57601" class="ldml-sentence">II.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="57601" data-sentence-id="57605" class="ldml-sentence">Insufficient Deference</span></b></span></section><p data-paragraph-id="57627" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="57627" data-sentence-id="57627" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_57627"><span class="ldml-cite">¶80</span></a></span> Regardless of the vitality of <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/890249034" data-vids="890249034" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_57627"><span class="ldml-refname"><i class="ldml-italics">Baker</i></span></a></span> in Colorado, our <span class="ldml-entity">case law</span> requires <span class="ldml-entity">courts</span> to decide justiciable issues with <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"great deference to the legislative construction of <span class="ldml-entity">the Constitution</span>, particularly with reference to its construction of the procedure provided by <span class="ldml-entity">the Constitution</span> for the passage of <span class="ldml-entity">bills</span>."</span></span> <span data-paragraph-id="57627" data-sentence-id="57934" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-referencechain"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-refglobal="case:inreinterrogatoriesofgovernorregardingcertainbillsoffifty–firstgenassembly,195colo198,214,578p2d200,2111978carrigan,j,dissenting" data-prop-ids="sentence_57627"><span class="ldml-refname"><i class="ldml-italics">In re Interrogatories of Governor Regarding Certain Bills of Fifty-First Gen. Assembly</i></span> , <span class="ldml-cite">195 Colo. 198
</span>, <span class="ldml-cite">578 P.2d 200
, 207</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-date">1978</span>)</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-cert">quoting</span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/893659975" data-vids="893659975" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_57627"><span class="ldml-refname"><i class="ldml-italics">Bd. of Cnty. Comm'rs v. Strait</i></span> , <span class="ldml-cite">36 Colo. 137
</span>, <span class="ldml-cite">85 P. 178
, 179</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-date">1906</span>)</span></a></span> )</span></span>.</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="58143" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="58143" data-sentence-id="58143" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_58143"><span class="ldml-cite">¶81</span></a></span> That deference has led <span class="ldml-entity">us</span> to ratify the General Assembly's implementation of constitutional procedures even when <span class="ldml-entity">we</span> had <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"serious doubts as to the correctness of the legislative practice"</span> and were <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"not prepared to say that unaided by the legislative construction ... our construction would have been the same."</span></span> <span data-paragraph-id="58143" data-sentence-id="58457" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-referencechain"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-refglobal="case:inreinterrogatoriesofgovernorregardingcertainbillsoffifty–firstgenassembly,195colo198,214,578p2d200,2111978carrigan,j,dissenting" data-prop-ids="sentence_58143"><span class="ldml-cite"><i class="ldml-italics">Id.</i> at 208</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-cert">quoting</span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/893659975" data-vids="893659975" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_58143"><span class="ldml-refname"><i class="ldml-italics">Strait</i></span> , <span class="ldml-cite">85 P. at 180</span></a></span> )</span><span class="ldml-referenceseparator">;</span> <span class="ldml-signal"><i class="ldml-italics">see also</i></span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-refglobal="case:inreinterrogatoriesrelatingtothegreatoutdoorscoloradotrustfund,913p2d533,538colo1996" data-prop-ids="embeddedsentence_58581,sentence_58143"><span class="ldml-refname"><i class="ldml-italics">In re Great Outdoors Colo. Tr. Fund</i></span> , <span class="ldml-cite">913 P.2d 533
, 538</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-court">Colo.</span> <span class="ldml-date">1996</span>)</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-quotation quote"><span class="ldml-embeddedsentence">"Where possible, <span class="ldml-entity">courts</span> should adopt a construction of a constitutional provision in keeping with that given by coordinate branches of government."</span></span>)</span><span class="ldml-referenceseparator">;</span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-refglobal="case:inthematteroflegislativereapportionmentharoldsteinvthegeneralassemblyofthestateofcoloradono20240374p2d66,150colo380july6,1962" data-prop-ids="embeddedsentence_58801,sentence_58143"><span class="ldml-refname"><i class="ldml-italics">In re Legis. Reapportionment</i></span> , <span class="ldml-cite">150 Colo. 380
</span>, <span class="ldml-cite">374 P.2d 66
, 69</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-date">1962</span>)</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-quotation quote"><span class="ldml-embeddedsentence">"There is ... a presumption ... that <span class="ldml-entity">the Legislature</span> has acted according to its oath to uphold <span class="ldml-entity">the constitution</span> unless the contrary appears beyond doubt."</span></span>)</span><span class="ldml-referenceseparator">;</span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/893659975" data-vids="893659975" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="embeddedsentence_58980,sentence_58143"><span class="ldml-refname"><i class="ldml-italics">Strait</i></span> , <span class="ldml-cite">85 P. at 180</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical"><span class="ldml-embeddedsentence">(<span class="ldml-quotation quote">"When there is a real doubt of the proper interpretation of a constitutional provision relating to the course of procedure, it should be solved in favor of the practical construction given it by <span class="ldml-entity">the Legislature</span>."</span></span> <span class="ldml-embeddedsentence"><span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-cert">quoting</span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/899809610" data-vids="899809610" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_58143"><span class="ldml-refname"><i class="ldml-italics">Browning v. Powers</i></span> , <span class="ldml-cite">38 S.W. 943
, 945</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-court">Mo.</span> <span class="ldml-date">1897</span>)</span></a></span> )</span>)</span></span><span class="ldml-referenceseparator">;</span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/894783552" data-vids="894783552" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="embeddedsentence_59345,sentence_58143"><span class="ldml-refname"><i class="ldml-italics">In re Speakership of the House of Representatives</i></span> , <span class="ldml-cite">15 Colo. 520
</span>, <span class="ldml-cite">25 P. 707
, 710</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-date">1891</span>)</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-embeddedsentence">recognizing that the General Assembly's power to govern its own proceedings, <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"when exercised within legitimate limits, is conclusive upon every department of the government"</span></span>)</span></span>.</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="59520" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="59520" data-sentence-id="59520" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_59520"><span class="ldml-cite">¶82</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-refglobal="case:senatefifty-firstgenassembly,578p2dat208" data-prop-ids="sentence_59520"><span class="ldml-refname"><i class="ldml-italics">Fifty-First General Assembly</i></span></a></span> is instructive.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="59520" data-sentence-id="59569" class="ldml-sentence">In <span class="ldml-entity">that case</span>, <span class="ldml-entity">we</span> reviewed whether the General Assembly had complied with a constitutional requirement that a <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"vote be taken by ayes and noes"</span> when passing <span class="ldml-entity">legislation</span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="59520" data-sentence-id="59737" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-referencechain"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-refglobal="case:senatefifty-firstgenassembly,578p2dat208" data-prop-ids="sentence_59569"><span class="ldml-refname"><i class="ldml-italics">Fifty-First Gen. Assembly</i></span> , <span class="ldml-cite">578 P.2d at 205</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-cert">quoting</span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_59569"><span class="ldml-cite">Colo. Const. art. V, § 22</span></a></span>)</span></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="59520" data-sentence-id="59818" class="ldml-sentence">The General Assembly had adopted the eyebrow-raising practice of voting by referring to earlier attendance roll calls such that <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"present"</span> became <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"aye"</span> and <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"absent"</span> became <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"no."</span></span> <span data-paragraph-id="59520" data-sentence-id="59995" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-refglobal="case:senatefifty-firstgenassembly,578p2dat208" data-prop-ids="sentence_59818"><span class="ldml-cite"><i class="ldml-italics">Id.</i></span></a></span></span> <span data-paragraph-id="59520" data-sentence-id="59999" class="ldml-sentence">Since the ayes and noes requirement did <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"not specify in exactly what manner <span class="ldml-pagenumber" data-id="pagenumber_60075" data-page_type="bracketed_cite" data-rep="P.3d" data-vol="482" data-val="439"></span> the ayes and noes are to be taken,"</span> <span class="ldml-entity">we</span> looked at whether the General Assembly's practice could be squared with the provision's text and purpose.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="59520" data-sentence-id="60221" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-referencechain"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-refglobal="case:senatefifty-firstgenassembly,578p2dat208" data-prop-ids="sentence_59999"><span class="ldml-cite"><i class="ldml-italics">Id.</i> at 207–08</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-referenceseparator">;</span> <span class="ldml-signal"><i class="ldml-italics">see</i></span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-refglobal="case:inreinterrogatoriesrelatingtothegreatoutdoorscoloradotrustfund,913p2d533,538colo1996" data-prop-ids="embeddedsentence_60290,sentence_59999"><span class="ldml-refname"><i class="ldml-italics">Great Outdoors Colo. Tr. Fund</i></span> , <span class="ldml-cite">913 P.2d at 539</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-quotation quote"><span class="ldml-embeddedsentence">"<span class="ldml-parenthetical">[T]</span>he General Assembly is authorized to resolve ambiguities ... in a manner consistent with the terms and underlying purposes of ... constitutional provisions."</span></span>)</span></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="59520" data-sentence-id="60454" class="ldml-sentence">The text was satisfied because the ayes and noes were literally <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"recorded in the official journal,"</span> and the purpose was met because members <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"were afforded the opportunity to approve or disapprove the pending <span class="ldml-entity">bill</span>"</span> by objecting to the use of the previous roll call.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="59520" data-sentence-id="60719" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-refglobal="case:senatefifty-firstgenassembly,578p2dat208" data-prop-ids="sentence_60454"><span class="ldml-refname"><i class="ldml-italics">Fifty-First Gen. Assembly</i></span> , <span class="ldml-cite">578 P.2d at 208</span></a></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="59520" data-sentence-id="60764" class="ldml-sentence">That arguable compliance prompted <span class="ldml-entity">us</span> to resolve our <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"serious doubts"</span> in favor of the General Assembly.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="59520" data-sentence-id="60867" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-referencechain"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-refglobal="case:senatefifty-firstgenassembly,578p2dat208" data-prop-ids="sentence_60764"><span class="ldml-cite"><i class="ldml-italics">Id.</i></span></a></span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-cert">quoting</span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/893659975" data-vids="893659975" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_60764"><span class="ldml-refname"><i class="ldml-italics">Strait</i></span> , <span class="ldml-cite">85 P. at 180</span></a></span> )</span></span>.</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="60904" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="60904" data-sentence-id="60904" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_60904"><span class="ldml-cite">¶83</span></a></span> In <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-refglobal="case:senatefifty-firstgenassembly,578p2dat208" data-prop-ids="sentence_60904"><span class="ldml-refname"><i class="ldml-italics">Fifty-First General Assembly</i></span></a></span> , <span class="ldml-entity">we</span> could have raked the General Assembly over the coals by examining unfavorable definitions of <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"vote"</span>; instead, <span class="ldml-entity">we</span> showed <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"great deference."</span></span> <span data-paragraph-id="60904" data-sentence-id="61084" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-referencechain"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-refglobal="case:senatefifty-firstgenassembly,578p2dat208" data-prop-ids="sentence_60904"><span class="ldml-cite"><i class="ldml-italics">Id.</i></span></a></span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-cert">quoting</span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/893659975" data-vids="893659975" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_60904"><span class="ldml-refname"><i class="ldml-italics">Strait</i></span> , <span class="ldml-cite">85 P. at 179</span></a></span> )</span></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="60904" data-sentence-id="61122" class="ldml-sentence">In contrast, the majority seems to review the Senate's interpretation of the reading requirement with little to no deference, measuring what the Senate did against different definitions of <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"read"</span> and concluding that the Senate violated the word's <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"ordinary and popular meaning."</span></span> <span data-paragraph-id="60904" data-sentence-id="61401" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_61122"><span class="ldml-cite">Maj. op. ¶¶ 33, 36</span></a></span>.</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="61420" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="61420" data-sentence-id="61420" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_61420"><span class="ldml-cite">¶84</span></a></span> Indeed, the majority effectively doubles down when it states that <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"issues of constitutional interpretation ... are subject to de novo review."</span></span> <span data-paragraph-id="61420" data-sentence-id="61567" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_61420"><span class="ldml-cite"><i class="ldml-italics">Id.</i></span></a></span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference"><span class="ldml-cite">at ¶ 20</span></a></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="61420" data-sentence-id="61580" class="ldml-sentence">While this is true in the ordinary course, <span class="ldml-entity">we</span> have a <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"duty"</span> to resolve even <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"serious doubts"</span> in favor of the Senate's interpretation because the reading requirement is a <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"procedure provided by <span class="ldml-entity">the Constitution</span> for the passage of <span class="ldml-entity">bills</span>."</span></span> <span data-paragraph-id="61420" data-sentence-id="61817" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-referencechain"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-refglobal="case:senatefifty-firstgenassembly,578p2dat208" data-prop-ids="sentence_61580"><span class="ldml-refname"><i class="ldml-italics">Fifty-First Gen. Assembly</i></span> , <span class="ldml-cite">578 P.2d at 208</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-cert">quoting</span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/893659975" data-vids="893659975" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_61580"><span class="ldml-refname"><i class="ldml-italics">Strait</i></span> , <span class="ldml-cite">85 P. at 179–80</span></a></span> )</span></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="61420" data-sentence-id="61898" class="ldml-sentence">This crucial principle is nowhere to be found in the majority's discussion of the standard of review.</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="61999" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="61999" data-sentence-id="61999" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_61999"><span class="ldml-cite">¶85</span></a></span> The majority holds that the Senate did not read House <span class="ldml-entity">Bill</span> 1172 <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-quotation quote">"HB 1172"</span>)</span> in part because some dictionaries specify that <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"reading"</span> requires words to be <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"pronounced in their proper order"</span> but the Senate's computers read different <span class="ldml-entity">sections of the bill</span> simultaneously.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="61999" data-sentence-id="62271" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_61999"><span class="ldml-cite">Maj. op. ¶ 36</span></a></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="61999" data-sentence-id="62286" class="ldml-sentence">Further, the majority finds that the Senate didn't read HB 1172 because the computers created a cacophony that divorced <span class="ldml-entity">the bill</span>'s words from <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"the sounds that customarily accompany"</span> them.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="61999" data-sentence-id="62474" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_62286"><span class="ldml-cite"><i class="ldml-italics">Id.</i></span></a></span></span></p><p data-paragraph-id="62477" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="62477" data-sentence-id="62477" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_62477"><span class="ldml-cite">¶86</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-entity"><span class="ldml-entity">I</span> agree with Justice <span class="ldml-entity">Márquez</span></span> that other dictionaries reveal that <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"read"</span> unambiguously means <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"nothing more than the ordinary act of uttering words aloud,"</span> which the Senate did when it caused computers to speak the entire text of HB 1172.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="62477" data-sentence-id="62718" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><span class="ldml-entity">Márquez</span>, J.</span>, diss. <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference"><span class="ldml-cite">op. ¶¶ 59, 61</span></a></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="62477" data-sentence-id="62752" class="ldml-sentence">However, to the extent that the reading requirement is ambiguous because it <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"does not specify in exactly what manner"</span> <span class="ldml-entity">a bill</span> must be read, I would still hold that the Senate sufficiently complied with the provision's text.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="62477" data-sentence-id="62975" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-referencechain"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-refglobal="case:senatefifty-firstgenassembly,578p2dat208" data-prop-ids="sentence_62752"><span class="ldml-refname"><i class="ldml-italics">Fifty-First Gen. Assembly</i></span> , <span class="ldml-cite">578 P.2d at 207</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-referenceseparator">;</span> <span class="ldml-signal"><i class="ldml-italics">see also</i></span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-refglobal="case:grossmanvdean,80p3d952,958coloappct2003" data-prop-ids="embeddedsentence_63085,sentence_62752"><span class="ldml-refname"><i class="ldml-italics">Grossman v. Dean</i></span> , <span class="ldml-cite">80 P.3d 952
, 963</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-court">Colo. App.</span> <span class="ldml-date">2003</span>)</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-embeddedsentence"><span class="ldml-relatingauthority">interpreting</span> the <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"intentionally general"</span> constitutional requirement that committees <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"consider<span class="ldml-parenthetical">[ ]</span>"</span> certain <span class="ldml-entity">bills</span> as requiring <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"some level of discussion, debate, or testimony"</span> but not <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"any specific form of committee consideration in every situation"</span></span>)</span></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="62477" data-sentence-id="63335" class="ldml-sentence">Even if <span class="ldml-entity">this court</span> is <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"not without serious doubts as to the correctness of the <span class="ldml-parenthetical">[Senate's]</span> practice,"</span> separation-of-powers concerns require <span class="ldml-entity">us</span> <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"to resolve the doubt in favor of the"</span> <span class="ldml-referencechain"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-refglobal="case:senatefifty-firstgenassembly,578p2dat208" data-prop-ids="sentence_63335"><span class="ldml-refname">Senate. <i class="ldml-italics">Fifty-First Gen. Assembly</i></span> , <span class="ldml-cite">578 P.2d at 208</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-cert">quoting</span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/893659975" data-vids="893659975" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_63335"><span class="ldml-refname"><i class="ldml-italics">Strait</i></span> , <span class="ldml-cite">85 P. at 180</span></a></span> )</span></span>.</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="63601" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="63601" data-sentence-id="63601" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_63601"><span class="ldml-cite">¶87</span></a></span> And this deferential approach is hardly some quirk of Colorado law.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="63601" data-sentence-id="63673" class="ldml-sentence">Just a few years ago, the <span class="ldml-entity">Kentucky Supreme Court</span> addressed a challenge under Kentucky's reading requirement by asking whether a reading had happened that <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"even plausibly comport<span class="ldml-parenthetical">[s]</span> with any conception of the phrase <span class="ldml-quotation quote">‘read at length’</span> ... <span class="ldml-parenthetical">[u]</span>nder any plausible meaning of those words that remains faithful to the English language."</span></span> <span data-paragraph-id="63601" data-sentence-id="64002" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/888348450" data-vids="888348450" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_63673"><span class="ldml-refname"><i class="ldml-italics">Bevin v. Commonwealth ex rel. Beshear</i></span> , <span class="ldml-cite">563 S.W.3d 74
, 85</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-court">Ky.</span> <span class="ldml-date">2018</span>)</span></a></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="63601" data-sentence-id="64072" class="ldml-sentence">In <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/888348450" data-vids="888348450" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_64072"><span class="ldml-refname"><i class="ldml-italics">Bevin</i></span></a></span> , <span class="ldml-entity">the court</span> okayed the practice of reading <span class="ldml-entity">a bill</span> <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"at length"</span> by reciting only the title but held that the Kentucky General Assembly had failed to do even that because it had read an inaccurate title.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="63601" data-sentence-id="64282" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/888348450" data-vids="888348450" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_64072"><span class="ldml-cite"><i class="ldml-italics">Id.</i> at 90</span></a></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="63601" data-sentence-id="64293" class="ldml-sentence">Yet the <span class="ldml-entity">Kentucky Supreme Court</span> distinguished the facts before it from those of <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/895257100" data-vids="895257100" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_64293"><span class="ldml-refname"><i class="ldml-italics">Gunn v. Hughes</i></span> , <span class="ldml-cite">210 So. 3d 969
, 971</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-court">Miss.</span> <span class="ldml-date">2017</span>)</span></a></span>, in which a computer read <span class="ldml-entity">a bill</span> on its highest speed.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="63601" data-sentence-id="64477" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/888348450" data-vids="888348450" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_64293"><span class="ldml-refname"><i class="ldml-italics">Bevin</i></span> , <span class="ldml-cite">563 S.W.3d at
85</span></a></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="63601" data-sentence-id="64503" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-quotation quote">"However preposterous it was <span class="ldml-parenthetical">[in <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/895257100" data-vids="895257100" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_64503"><span class="ldml-refname"><i class="ldml-italics">Gunn</i></span></a></span> ]</span> to physically read <span class="ldml-pagenumber" data-id="pagenumber_64562" data-page_type="bracketed_cite" data-rep="P.3d" data-vol="482" data-val="440"></span> aloud <span class="ldml-entity">a bill</span> at an incomprehensible pace, it cannot be disputed that <span class="ldml-entity">the bill</span> was literally read aloud in its entirety."</span></span> <span data-paragraph-id="63601" data-sentence-id="64684" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-referencechain"><span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/888348450" data-vids="888348450" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="embeddedsentence_64689,sentence_64503"><span class="ldml-cite"><i class="ldml-italics">Id.</i></span></a></span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-quotation quote"><span class="ldml-embeddedsentence">"The <span class="ldml-parenthetical">[Mississippi Supreme]</span> Court declined to engage in the minutia of directing <span class="ldml-entity">the legislature</span> how fast or slow it must read <span class="ldml-entity">the bill</span>."</span></span>)</span></span>.<a href="#note-fr_2" class="ldml-noteanchor" id="note-ref-fr_2">2</a></span> </p><p data-paragraph-id="64828" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="64828" data-sentence-id="64828" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_64828"><span class="ldml-cite">¶88</span></a></span> The majority also concludes that the speedreading of HB 1172 <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"can in no way be reasonably viewed as consistent with"</span> the reading requirement's purpose.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="64828" data-sentence-id="64984" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_64828"><span class="ldml-cite">Maj. op. ¶ 40</span></a></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="64828" data-sentence-id="64999" class="ldml-sentence">According to the majority, that purpose is <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"<span class="ldml-parenthetical">[t]</span>o afford protection from hasty <span class="ldml-entity">legislation</span>."</span></span> <span data-paragraph-id="64828" data-sentence-id="65091" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-referencechain"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="embeddedsentence_65096,sentence_64999"><span class="ldml-cite"><i class="ldml-italics">Id.</i></span></a></span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-embeddedsentence">quoting <i class="ldml-italics">Proceedings of the Constitutional Convention of <span class="ldml-entity">1875</span></i> 725 <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-entity">1907</span>)</span></span>)</span></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="64828" data-sentence-id="65170" class="ldml-sentence">Putting to one side Justice Márquez's point that the purpose of the reading requirement was to inform illiterate legislators, <span class="ldml-referencechain"><span class="ldml-signal"><i class="ldml-italics">see</i></span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference"><span class="ldml-refname">Márquez, J., diss.</span> <span class="ldml-cite">op. ¶¶ 62–65</span></a></span></span>, the majority's argument fails on its own terms.</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="65380" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="65380" data-sentence-id="65380" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_65380"><span class="ldml-cite">¶89</span></a></span> HB 1172 was read from approximately 10:30 a.m. to 5:20 p.m.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="65380" data-sentence-id="65444" class="ldml-sentence">If the purpose of the reading requirement is delay, then that purpose was served here: The Senate devoted seven hours of its 120-day session to <span class="ldml-entity">a bill</span> that recodified a statutory title.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="65380" data-sentence-id="65630" class="ldml-sentence">Further, if the majority thinks that seven hours was unconstitutionally brief, the provision's separate rule that <span class="ldml-entity">the bill</span> be read <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"on two different days"</span> ensures that determined senators can always double the delay and that the Senate can't speedread <span class="ldml-entity">a bill</span> and pass it that same day.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="65380" data-sentence-id="65916" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_65630"><span class="ldml-cite">Colo. Const. art. V, § 22</span></a></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="65380" data-sentence-id="65943" class="ldml-sentence">And, again, if the majority thinks that the Senate plausibly fulfilled the purpose of the reading requirement, it must show great deference and resolve even serious doubts in favor of the Senate.</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="66138" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="66138" data-sentence-id="66138" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_66138"><span class="ldml-cite">¶90</span></a></span> Because the Senate arguably complied with the text and purpose of the reading requirement, I would reverse <span class="ldml-entity">the district court</span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="66138" data-sentence-id="66269" class="ldml-sentence">But even if I thought that the majority was right to affirm, I would still dissent from the majority's discussion of injunctive relief in Part II.D of its opinion.</span></p></div><div class="ldml-section"><section class="ldml-heading content__heading content__heading--depth1" data-id="heading_66432" data-format="upper_case_roman_numeral" data-specifier="III" data-ordinal_end="3" data-ordinal_start="3" data-content-heading-label="III. Pre-Enactment Injunctive Relief" data-parsed="true" data-value="III. Pre-Enactment Injunctive Relief" id="heading_66432"><span data-paragraph-id="66432" class="ldml-paragraph "><b class="ldml-bold"><span data-paragraph-id="66432" data-sentence-id="66432" class="ldml-sentence">III.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="66432" data-sentence-id="66437" class="ldml-sentence">Pre-<span class="ldml-entity">Enactment</span> Injunctive Relief</span></b></span></section><p data-paragraph-id="66468" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="66468" data-sentence-id="66468" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_66468"><span class="ldml-cite">¶91</span></a></span> The majority rightly reaffirms that <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"issuing injunctive relief prior to <span class="ldml-entity">the enactment of a bill</span> interferes with the legislative process and is unwarranted absent <span class="ldml-quotation quote">‘extraordinary circumstances.’</span> "</span></span> <span data-paragraph-id="66468" data-sentence-id="66667" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-referencechain"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_66468"><span class="ldml-cite">Maj. op. ¶ 19 n.6</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-cert">quoting</span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/894577393" data-vids="894577393" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_66468"><span class="ldml-refname"><i class="ldml-italics">Lewis v. Denver City Waterworks Co.</i></span> , <span class="ldml-cite">19 Colo. 236
</span>, <span class="ldml-cite">34 P. 993
, 995</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-date">1893</span>)</span></a></span> )</span></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="66468" data-sentence-id="66771" class="ldml-sentence">The majority chooses not to reach the issue of whether such extraordinary circumstances existed here because it views the matter as beyond the questions presented.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="66468" data-sentence-id="66935" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_66771"><span class="ldml-cite"><i class="ldml-italics">Id.</i></span></a></span></span> <span data-paragraph-id="66468" data-sentence-id="66939" class="ldml-sentence">Even so, the majority's footnote matters.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="66468" data-sentence-id="66981" class="ldml-sentence">Without that disclaimer, <span class="ldml-entity"><span class="ldml-entity">the court</span>'s opinion</span> affirming the judgment of <span class="ldml-entity">the district court</span> could be misconstrued as condoning pre-<span class="ldml-entity">enactment</span> injunctive relief.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="66468" data-sentence-id="67139" class="ldml-sentence">Now, that shouldn't happen.</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="67166" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="67166" data-sentence-id="67166" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_67166"><span class="ldml-cite">¶92</span></a></span> Still, I would reach this issue because the presence <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(or absence)</span> of extraordinary circumstances goes to the second question presented: <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"<span class="ldml-parenthetical">[w]</span>hether the <span class="ldml-parenthetical">[d]</span>istrict <span class="ldml-parenthetical">[c]</span>ourt correctly evaluated the requirements for injunctive relief to direct the manner of the <span class="ldml-entity">State Senate</span>'s <span class="ldml-quotation quote">‘reading’</span> of a pending <span class="ldml-entity">bill</span>."</span></span> <span data-paragraph-id="67166" data-sentence-id="67472" class="ldml-sentence">When <span class="ldml-entity">a bill</span> is <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"pending,"</span> the requirements for injunctive relief exceed the criteria from <span class="ldml-entity"><span class="ldml-referencechain"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference"><span class="ldml-cite">C.R.C.P. 65</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-referenceseparator">and</span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-refglobal="case:rathkevmacfarlaneno81sa263648p2d648july19,1982" data-prop-ids="sentence_67472"><span class="ldml-refname"><i class="ldml-italics">Rathke v. MacFarlane</i></span> , <span class="ldml-cite">648 P.2d 648
</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-court">Colo.</span> <span class="ldml-date">1982</span>)</span></a></span></span></span>.</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="67627" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="67627" data-sentence-id="67627" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_67627"><span class="ldml-cite">¶93</span></a></span> In almost all <span class="ldml-entity">cases</span>, <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"the <span class="ldml-entity">legislature</span> cannot be ... restrained from passing an act, even though <span class="ldml-entity">the constitution</span> expressly forbids it."</span></span> <span data-paragraph-id="67627" data-sentence-id="67767" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-referencechain"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-refglobal="case:coloradocommoncausevbledsoe,810p2d,201,212colo1991lohr,j,concurringinpartanddissentinginpart" data-prop-ids="sentence_67627"><span class="ldml-refname"><i class="ldml-italics">Bledsoe</i></span> , <span class="ldml-cite">810 P.2d at 208</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-cert">quoting</span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/894577393" data-vids="894577393" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_67627"><span class="ldml-refname"><i class="ldml-italics">Lewis</i></span> , <span class="ldml-cite">34 P. at 994</span></a></span> )</span><span class="ldml-referenceseparator">;</span> <i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-signal">see</span> </i> <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-refglobal="case:polhillvbuckleyno96sa257923p2d119sept9,1996" data-prop-ids="embeddedsentence_67884,sentence_67627"><span class="ldml-refname"><i class="ldml-italics">Polhill v. Buckley</i></span> , <span class="ldml-cite">923 P.2d 119
, 121</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-court">Colo.</span> <span class="ldml-date">1996</span>)</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-quotation quote"><span class="ldml-embeddedsentence">"Our <span class="ldml-entity">case law</span> embodies a strong tradition which holds that <span class="ldml-entity">courts</span> cannot interfere with the ongoing legislative process except in extraordinary circumstances."</span></span>)</span></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="67627" data-sentence-id="68046" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-quotation quote">"In <span class="ldml-entity">the enactment</span> of <span class="ldml-parenthetical">[<span class="ldml-entity">legislation</span>]</span> by the general assembly, ... each step must be taken as <span class="ldml-entity">the constitution</span> provides, yet while the measure is ... in process of <span class="ldml-entity">legislation</span>, the general assembly is the judge of whether the steps are being so taken ...."</span></span> <span data-paragraph-id="67627" data-sentence-id="68300" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-referencechain"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-refglobal="case:polhillvbuckleyno96sa257923p2d119sept9,1996" data-prop-ids="sentence_68046"><span class="ldml-refname"><i class="ldml-italics">Polhill</i></span> , <span class="ldml-cite">923 P.2d at 122</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-cert">quoting</span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/893299106" data-vids="893299106" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_68046"><span class="ldml-refname"><i class="ldml-italics">Speer v. People</i></span> , <span class="ldml-cite">52 Colo. 325
</span>, <span class="ldml-cite">122 P. 768
, 770</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-date">1912</span>)</span></a></span> )</span></span>.</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="68392" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="68392" data-sentence-id="68392" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_68392"><span class="ldml-cite">¶94</span></a></span> In <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-refglobal="case:coloradocommoncausevbledsoe,810p2d,201,212colo1991lohr,j,concurringinpartanddissentinginpart" data-prop-ids="sentence_68392"><span class="ldml-refname"><i class="ldml-italics">Bledsoe</i></span></a></span> , <span class="ldml-entity">we</span> held that <span class="ldml-entity">a district court</span> hadn't abused its discretion when it dismissed a pre-<span class="ldml-entity">enactment</span> request to enjoin legislators from violating a constitutional procedure.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="68392" data-sentence-id="68575" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-refglobal="case:coloradocommoncausevbledsoe,810p2d,201,212colo1991lohr,j,concurringinpartanddissentinginpart" data-prop-ids="sentence_68392"><span class="ldml-cite">810 P.2d at 204</span></a></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="68392" data-sentence-id="68592" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity">We</span> reasoned, <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"<span class="ldml-parenthetical">[T]</span>he <span class="ldml-pagenumber" data-id="pagenumber_68612" data-page_type="bracketed_cite" data-rep="P.3d" data-vol="482" data-val="441"></span> judiciary's role in large part is limited to measuring <span class="ldml-entity">legislative <i class="ldml-italics">enactments</i></span> against <span class="ldml-entity">the standard of <span class="ldml-entity">the constitution</span></span>, and declaring them null and void if <span class="ldml-entity">they</span> are violative of <span class="ldml-entity">the constitution</span>."</span></span> <span data-paragraph-id="68392" data-sentence-id="68810" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-referencechain"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-refglobal="case:coloradocommoncausevbledsoe,810p2d,201,212colo1991lohr,j,concurringinpartanddissentinginpart" data-prop-ids="sentence_68592"><span class="ldml-cite"><i class="ldml-italics">Id.</i> at 210</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-referencenote">emphasis added</span>)</span></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="68392" data-sentence-id="68839" class="ldml-sentence">In contrast, <span class="ldml-entity">a court</span> can issue pre-<span class="ldml-entity">enactment</span> declaratory relief against the General Assembly because that doesn't <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"present the same kind or degree of affirmative interference with legislative activities."</span></span> <span data-paragraph-id="68392" data-sentence-id="69044" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-referencechain"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-refglobal="case:coloradocommoncausevbledsoe,810p2d,201,212colo1991lohr,j,concurringinpartanddissentinginpart" data-prop-ids="sentence_68839"><span class="ldml-cite"><i class="ldml-italics">Id.</i> at 211</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-referenceseparator">;</span> <span class="ldml-signal"><i class="ldml-italics">accord</i></span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-refglobal="case:grossmanvdean,80p3d952,958coloappct2003" data-prop-ids="embeddedsentence_69091,sentence_68839"><span class="ldml-refname"><i class="ldml-italics">Grossman</i></span> , <span class="ldml-cite">80 P.3d at
961</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-quotation quote"><span class="ldml-embeddedsentence">"A request that <span class="ldml-entity">the court</span> enjoin conduct by <span class="ldml-entity">the legislature</span> generally entails an improper intrusion into legislative affairs, but a <span class="ldml-entity">request for a declaratory judgment</span> that an action is unconstitutional may be addressed by <span class="ldml-entity">the court</span>."</span></span>)</span></span></span><span data-paragraph-id="68392" data-sentence-id="69325" class="ldml-sentence">.</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="69326" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="69326" data-sentence-id="69326" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_69326"><span class="ldml-cite">¶95</span></a></span> So, the majority is correct that pre-<span class="ldml-entity">enactment</span> injunctive relief was inappropriate here unless there were <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"extraordinary circumstances"</span> warranting that intrusion into the legislative sphere.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="69326" data-sentence-id="69521" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-referencechain"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_69326"><span class="ldml-cite">Maj. op. ¶ 19 n.6</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-cert">quoting</span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/894577393" data-vids="894577393" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_69326"><span class="ldml-refname"><i class="ldml-italics">Lewis</i></span> , <span class="ldml-cite">34 P. at 995</span></a></span> )</span></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="69326" data-sentence-id="69572" class="ldml-sentence">Two of <span class="ldml-entity">the respondents</span> were prime sponsors of HB 1172, and <span class="ldml-entity">they</span> argue that post-<span class="ldml-entity">enactment</span> relief would not have vindicated their dual interests in the constitutional viability of their <span class="ldml-entity">legislation</span> and the enforcement of the reading requirement.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="69326" data-sentence-id="69817" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-referencechain"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-signal">See</span> </i> <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-refglobal="case:polhillvbuckleyno96sa257923p2d119sept9,1996" data-prop-ids="embeddedsentence_69849,sentence_69572"><span class="ldml-refname"><i class="ldml-italics">Polhill</i></span> , <span class="ldml-cite">923 P.2d at 122</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-quotation quote"><span class="ldml-embeddedsentence">"In an appropriate case, <span class="ldml-entity">this court</span> may exercise its equitable powers where no adequate remedy is provided by the <span class="ldml-parenthetical">[post-<span class="ldml-entity">enactment</span> review]</span> process."</span></span>)</span></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="69326" data-sentence-id="69999" class="ldml-sentence">At oral argument, however, <span class="ldml-entity">respondents</span> volunteered that their goal was to <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"stall the majority's consideration of other <span class="ldml-entity">bills</span>."</span></span> <span data-paragraph-id="69326" data-sentence-id="70126" class="ldml-sentence">Such political tactics cannot transmute this matter into one of the <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"extreme <span class="ldml-entity">cases</span>"</span> that justify a suspension of our usual prohibition against pre-<span class="ldml-entity">enactment</span> injunctions.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="69326" data-sentence-id="70296" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/894577393" data-vids="894577393" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_70126"><span class="ldml-refname"><i class="ldml-italics">Lewis</i></span> , <span class="ldml-cite">34 P. at 995</span></a></span>.</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="70317" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="70317" data-sentence-id="70317" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_70317"><span class="ldml-cite">¶96</span></a></span> Given the lack of extraordinary circumstances, the problem with <span class="ldml-entity">the district court</span>'s injunctive relief is that it happened at all, not that it dictated how to comply with the reading requirement.</span></p></div><div class="ldml-section"><section class="ldml-heading content__heading content__heading--depth1" data-ordinal_end="4" data-ordinal_start="4" data-format="upper_case_roman_numeral" data-types="conclusion" data-specifier="IV" data-confidences="very_high" data-id="heading_70516" data-content-heading-label="IV. Conclusion" data-parsed="true" data-value="IV. Conclusion" id="heading_70516"><span data-paragraph-id="70516" class="ldml-paragraph "><b class="ldml-bold"><span data-paragraph-id="70516" data-sentence-id="70516" class="ldml-sentence">IV.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="70516" data-sentence-id="70520" class="ldml-sentence">Conclusion</span></b></span></section><p data-paragraph-id="70530" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="70530" data-sentence-id="70530" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_70530"><span class="ldml-cite">¶97</span></a></span> I respectfully dissent because <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/890249034" data-vids="890249034" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_70530"><span class="ldml-refname"><i class="ldml-italics">Baker</i></span></a></span> is not the law in Colorado and <span class="ldml-entity">the district court</span> showed insufficient deference to the Senate.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="70530" data-sentence-id="70666" class="ldml-sentence">By reviewing the Senate's interpretation of the reading requirement de novo, the majority saps the separation-of-powers doctrine of any practical force in this sensitive case.</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="70841" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="70841" data-sentence-id="70841" class="ldml-sentence">I am authorized to state that JUSTICE MÁRQUEZ and JUSTICE HART join in this dissent.</span></p></div></div><div class="ldml-notes content__heading content__heading--depth1" data-content-heading-label="Footnotes"><div class="ldml-note ldml-note"><p data-paragraph-id="70925" class="ldml-paragraph "><sup class="ldml-superscript"></sup><a href="#note-ref-fr1" class="ldml-notemarker" id="note-fr1">1</a> <span data-paragraph-id="70925" data-sentence-id="70926" class="ldml-sentence">Senator Cooke was a prime sponsor of HB 1172 in the Senate.</span></p></div><div class="ldml-note ldml-note"><p data-paragraph-id="70985" class="ldml-paragraph "><sup class="ldml-superscript"></sup><a href="#note-ref-fr2" class="ldml-notemarker" id="note-fr2">2</a> <span data-paragraph-id="70985" data-sentence-id="70986" class="ldml-sentence">This is not an occurrence unique to Colorado.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="70985" data-sentence-id="71032" class="ldml-sentence">Less than two weeks ago, clerks in the U.S. Senate read aloud the entire 628-page <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference"><span class="ldml-cite">COVID-19</span></a></span> relief <span class="ldml-entity">bill</span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="70985" data-sentence-id="71136" class="ldml-sentence"><i class="ldml-italics">See</i> <span class="ldml-entity">Alan Fram</span>, <i class="ldml-italics">By Slimmest of Margins, Senate Takes Up $1.9T Relief <span class="ldml-entity">Bill</span></i> , AP News <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-entity">Mar. 4, 2021</span>)</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">[https://perma.cc/V6VE-895Y]</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-relatingauthority">observing</span> that one senator who was <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"at his desk for most of the night"</span> appeared <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"to follow along silently, one sheet at a time"</span>)</span>.</span></p></div><div class="ldml-note ldml-note"><p data-paragraph-id="71393" class="ldml-paragraph "><sup class="ldml-superscript"></sup><a href="#note-ref-fr3" class="ldml-notemarker" id="note-fr3">3</a> <span data-paragraph-id="71393" data-sentence-id="71394" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity">We</span> have listened to a representative sample of the sounds produced by the computers and have confirmed that <span class="ldml-entity">they</span> were unintelligible.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="71393" data-sentence-id="71528" class="ldml-sentence"><i class="ldml-italics">See</i> Colorado Channel, <i class="ldml-italics">Colorado Senate <span class="ldml-entity">2019</span> Legislative Day 067</i> , http://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=12835& v=QCpq_3jlP30.</span></p></div><div class="ldml-note ldml-note"><p data-paragraph-id="71657" class="ldml-paragraph "><sup class="ldml-superscript"></sup><a href="#note-ref-fr4" class="ldml-notemarker" id="note-fr4">4</a> <span data-paragraph-id="71657" data-sentence-id="71658" class="ldml-sentence">Senator Gardner was also a prime sponsor of HB 1172 in the Senate.</span></p></div><div class="ldml-note ldml-note"><p data-paragraph-id="71724" class="ldml-paragraph "><sup class="ldml-superscript"></sup><a href="#note-ref-fr5" class="ldml-notemarker" id="note-fr5">5</a> <span data-paragraph-id="71724" data-sentence-id="71725" class="ldml-sentence">The issues <span class="ldml-entity">we</span> agreed to review are as follows:</span></p><div class="ldml-embeddeddocument"><blockquote data-paragraph-id="b_71771" class="ldml-blockquote"><span data-sentence-id="71771" class="ldml-sentence">1.</span> <span data-sentence-id="71774" class="ldml-sentence">Whether <span class="ldml-entity">the District Court</span> erred in finding that a dispute over the manner of the <span class="ldml-entity">State Senate</span>'s <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"reading"</span> of a pending <span class="ldml-entity">bill</span>, pursuant to <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_71774"><span class="ldml-cite">Colo. Const., art. V, Sec. 22</span></a></span>, was justiciable, rather than finding it was a political question and thus refuse to exercise jurisdiction.</span></blockquote><blockquote data-paragraph-id="b_72049" class="ldml-blockquote"><span data-sentence-id="72049" class="ldml-sentence">2.</span> <span data-sentence-id="72052" class="ldml-sentence">Whether <span class="ldml-entity">the District Court</span> correctly evaluated the requirements for injunctive relief to direct the manner of the <span class="ldml-entity">State Senate</span>'s <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"reading"</span> of a pending <span class="ldml-entity">bill</span>.</span></blockquote><blockquote data-paragraph-id="b_72209" class="ldml-blockquote"><span data-sentence-id="72209" class="ldml-sentence">3.</span> <span data-sentence-id="72212" class="ldml-sentence">Whether <span class="ldml-entity">the District Court</span> erred in granting declaratory relief, in light of non-textual parameters it established to direct <span class="ldml-entity">bill</span> readings in the <span class="ldml-entity">State Senate for House <span class="ldml-entity">Bill</span></span> 19-1172 and future <span class="ldml-entity">bills</span>.</span></blockquote></div></div><div class="ldml-note ldml-note"><p data-paragraph-id="72411" class="ldml-paragraph "><sup class="ldml-superscript"></sup><a href="#note-ref-fr6" class="ldml-notemarker" id="note-fr6">6</a> <span data-paragraph-id="72411" data-sentence-id="72412" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity">We</span> recognize that issuing injunctive relief prior to <span class="ldml-entity">the enactment of a bill</span> interferes with the legislative process and is unwarranted absent <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"extraordinary circumstances."</span></span> <span data-paragraph-id="72411" data-sentence-id="72586" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/894577393" data-vids="894577393" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_72412"><span class="ldml-refname"><i class="ldml-italics">Lewis v. Denver City Waterworks Co.</i></span> , <span class="ldml-cite">19 Colo. 236
</span>, <span class="ldml-cite">34 P. 993
, 995</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-date">1893</span>)</span></a></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="72411" data-sentence-id="72661" class="ldml-sentence">However, <span class="ldml-entity">we</span> did not grant certiorari review on whether <span class="ldml-entity">the district court</span> had authority, supported by extraordinary circumstances, to issue pre-<span class="ldml-entity">enactment</span> injunctive relief in <span class="ldml-entity">this case</span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="72411" data-sentence-id="72847" class="ldml-sentence">Therefore, <span class="ldml-entity">we</span> decline to address the question.</span></p></div><div class="ldml-note ldml-note"><p data-paragraph-id="72893" class="ldml-paragraph "><sup class="ldml-superscript"></sup><a href="#note-ref-fr7" class="ldml-notemarker" id="note-fr7">7</a> <span data-paragraph-id="72893" data-sentence-id="72894" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-refglobal="case:seelobatovstate,218p3d358,371colo2009lobatoi" data-prop-ids="sentence_72894"><span class="ldml-refname"><i class="ldml-italics">Lobato</i></span></a></span> is the exception.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="72893" data-sentence-id="72919" class="ldml-sentence">In <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-refglobal="case:seelobatovstate,218p3d358,371colo2009lobatoi" data-prop-ids="sentence_72919"><span class="ldml-refname"><i class="ldml-italics">Lobato</i></span></a></span> , after evaluating <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"the critique of <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/890249034" data-vids="890249034" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_72919"><span class="ldml-refname"><i class="ldml-italics">Baker</i></span></a></span> "</span> in the context of <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"affirmative state constitutional rights such as the education clause"</span> at issue there, <span class="ldml-entity">we</span> found <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"that <span class="ldml-entity">the <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/890249034" data-vids="890249034" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_72919"><span class="ldml-refname"><i class="ldml-italics">Baker</i></span></a></span> test</span> d<span class="ldml-parenthetical">[id]</span> not apply."</span></span> <span data-paragraph-id="72893" data-sentence-id="73126" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-refglobal="case:seelobatovstate,218p3d358,371colo2009lobatoi" data-prop-ids="sentence_72919"><span class="ldml-cite">218 P.3d at 368–70</span></a></span>.</span></p></div><div class="ldml-note ldml-note"><p data-paragraph-id="73145" class="ldml-paragraph "><sup class="ldml-superscript"></sup><a href="#note-ref-fr8" class="ldml-notemarker" id="note-fr8">8</a> <span data-paragraph-id="73145" data-sentence-id="73146" class="ldml-sentence">The framers of <span class="ldml-entity">the state</span> <span class="ldml-entity">constitution</span> and <span class="ldml-entity">the people</span> of the <span class="ldml-entity">State of Colorado</span> sought to afford protection from hasty <span class="ldml-entity">legislation</span> through four contemporaneous requirements: the reading requirement; the printing requirement, which provides that all <span class="ldml-entity">bills</span> must be printed; the requirement that only one subject be embraced by each <span class="ldml-entity">bill</span>; and the requirement that no <span class="ldml-entity">bill</span> be introduced <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(except for general government expenses)</span> after the first twenty-five days of the legislative session.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="73145" data-sentence-id="73629" class="ldml-sentence"><i class="ldml-italics">See</i> <i class="ldml-italics">Proceedings of the Constitutional Convention of <span class="ldml-entity">1875</span></i> 725 <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-entity">1907</span>)</span>.</span></p></div><div class="ldml-note ldml-note"><p data-paragraph-id="73697" class="ldml-paragraph "><sup class="ldml-superscript"></sup><a href="#note-ref-fr9" class="ldml-notemarker" id="note-fr9">9</a> <span data-paragraph-id="73697" data-sentence-id="73698" class="ldml-sentence">Neither side has expressed concern that our partial affirmance of the judgment may invite challenges to previously enacted <span class="ldml-entity">legislation</span>, and <span class="ldml-entity">we</span> decline to engage in such speculation.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="73697" data-sentence-id="73880" class="ldml-sentence">Regardless, it is our bounden duty to enforce the plain meaning of the language in <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_73880"><span class="ldml-cite">article V, section 22</span></a></span>, and <span class="ldml-entity">we</span> may not shirk that responsibility out of a desire to adhere to yesterday's practices or for fear of what tomorrow may bring.</span></p></div><div class="ldml-note ldml-note"><p data-paragraph-id="74117" class="ldml-paragraph "><sup class="ldml-superscript"></sup><a href="#note-ref-fr_1" class="ldml-notemarker" id="note-fr_1">1</a> <span data-paragraph-id="74117" data-sentence-id="74118" class="ldml-sentence">I join Justice Hood's dissent in full but write separately to emphasize <span class="ldml-entity">this court</span>'s role in interpreting <span class="ldml-entity">the constitution</span> as well as the plain text, history, and consistent legislative practice with regard to <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_74118"><span class="ldml-cite">article V, section 22</span></a></span>.</span></p></div><div class="ldml-note ldml-note"><p data-paragraph-id="74350" class="ldml-paragraph "><sup class="ldml-superscript"></sup><a href="#note-ref-fr_2" class="ldml-notemarker" id="note-fr_2">2</a> <span data-paragraph-id="74350" data-sentence-id="74351" class="ldml-sentence">If the majority's approach is meant to rectify <span class="ldml-entity">the district court</span>'s improper entry of a permanent injunctive order, it is an overcorrection.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="74350" data-sentence-id="74492" class="ldml-sentence">The General Assembly cannot be <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"restrained from passing an act, even though <span class="ldml-entity">the constitution</span> expressly forbids it."</span></span> <span data-paragraph-id="74350" data-sentence-id="74608" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-referencechain"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-refglobal="case:coloradocommoncausevbledsoe,810p2d,201,212colo1991lohr,j,concurringinpartanddissentinginpart" data-prop-ids="sentence_74492"><span class="ldml-refname"><i class="ldml-italics">Bledsoe</i></span> , <span class="ldml-cite">810 P.2d at 208</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-cert">quoting</span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/894577393" data-vids="894577393" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_74492"><span class="ldml-refname"><i class="ldml-italics">Lewis v. Denver City Waterworks Co.</i></span> , <span class="ldml-cite">19 Colo. 236
</span>, <span class="ldml-cite">34 P. 993
, 994</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-date">1893</span>)</span></a></span> )</span></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="74350" data-sentence-id="74720" class="ldml-sentence">But <i class="ldml-italics">declaring</i> a legislative practice lawful or unlawful and explaining why is different than <i class="ldml-italics">enjoining</i> <span class="ldml-entity">the legislature</span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="74350" data-sentence-id="74840" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-referencechain"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-refglobal="case:coloradocommoncausevbledsoe,810p2d,201,212colo1991lohr,j,concurringinpartanddissentinginpart" data-prop-ids="embeddedsentence_74852,sentence_74720"><span class="ldml-cite"><i class="ldml-italics">Id.</i> at 211</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-quotation quote"><span class="ldml-embeddedsentence">"In contrast to actions seeking injunctive relief against legislators, declaratory-judgment actions do not present the same kind or degree of affirmative interference with legislative activities ....</span> <span class="ldml-embeddedsentence">Declaratory relief, if granted, does not <span class="ldml-quotation quote">‘compel<span class="ldml-parenthetical">[ ]</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">[the <span class="ldml-entity">legislature</span>]</span> to pass an act ... nor restrain<span class="ldml-parenthetical">[ ]</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">[it]</span> from passing an act.’</span> "</span></span> <span class="ldml-embeddedsentence"><span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-cert">quoting</span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/894577393" data-vids="894577393" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_74720"><span class="ldml-refname"><i class="ldml-italics">Lewis</i></span> , <span class="ldml-cite">34 P. at 994</span></a></span> )</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-referencenote">alterations in original</span>)</span>)</span></span></span>.</span></p></div><div class="ldml-note ldml-note"><p data-paragraph-id="75245" class="ldml-paragraph "><sup class="ldml-superscript"></sup><a href="#note-ref-fr_3" class="ldml-notemarker" id="note-fr_3">3</a> <span data-paragraph-id="75245" data-sentence-id="75246" class="ldml-sentence">Common sense also indicates that <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"read"</span> need not always mean <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"read in the proper order."</span></span> <span data-paragraph-id="75245" data-sentence-id="75335" class="ldml-sentence">A teacher who reads a book of short stories aloud to a class but reads the individual stories out of sequence has still <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"read"</span> that book in the ordinary sense of the term.</span></p></div><div class="ldml-note ldml-note"><p data-paragraph-id="75506" class="ldml-paragraph "><sup class="ldml-superscript"></sup><a href="#note-ref-fr_4" class="ldml-notemarker" id="note-fr_4">4</a> <span data-paragraph-id="75506" data-sentence-id="75507" class="ldml-sentence">To the extent the majority's holding rests on its assertion that the computers reciting <span class="ldml-entity">the bill</span> did not produce the <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"sounds that customarily accompany the words of HB 1172,"</span> I disagree.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="75506" data-sentence-id="75694" class="ldml-sentence"><i class="ldml-italics">See</i> maj. <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference"><span class="ldml-cite">op. ¶ 36</span></a></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="75506" data-sentence-id="75713" class="ldml-sentence">Although the words were recited quickly and in an overlapping manner, making individual words difficult to differentiate, the <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"sounds that customarily accompany"</span> each word clearly were voiced.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="75506" data-sentence-id="75906" class="ldml-sentence"><i class="ldml-italics">See, e.g.</i> , Colorado Channel, <i class="ldml-italics">Colorado Senate <span class="ldml-entity">2019</span> Legislative Day 067</i> 03:31:31–03:31:36, https://youtu.be/QCpq_3jlP30?t=12677 <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(in which the computer closest to the recording microphone clearly recites <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"fourteen, fifteen, sixteen, seventeen, eighteen, nineteen"</span>)</span>.</span></p></div><div class="ldml-note ldml-note"><p data-paragraph-id="76169" class="ldml-paragraph "><sup class="ldml-superscript"></sup><a href="#note-ref-fr_5" class="ldml-notemarker" id="note-fr_5">5</a> <span data-paragraph-id="76169" data-sentence-id="76170" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity">This court</span> ultimately struck down the resulting redistricting <span class="ldml-entity">bill</span> on other grounds.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="76169" data-sentence-id="76255" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-referencechain"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-signal">See</span> </i> <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-refglobal="case:peopleexrelsalazarvdavidson,79p3d1221,1243colo2003kourlis,j,dissenting" data-prop-ids="sentence_76170"><span class="ldml-refname"><i class="ldml-italics">People ex rel. Salazar v. Davidson</i></span> , <span class="ldml-cite">79 P.3d 1221
</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-court">Colo.</span> <span class="ldml-date">2003</span>)</span></a></span></span>.</span></p></div><div class="ldml-note ldml-note"><p data-paragraph-id="76323" class="ldml-paragraph "><sup class="ldml-superscript"></sup><a href="#note-ref-fr_1" class="ldml-notemarker" id="note-fr_1">1</a> <span data-paragraph-id="76323" data-sentence-id="76324" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity">This court</span> has found the following issues justiciable: whether Colorado's school finance system was constitutionally adequate, <span class="ldml-referencechain"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-refglobal="case:seelobatovstate,218p3d358,371colo2009lobatoi" data-prop-ids="sentence_76324"><span class="ldml-refname"><i class="ldml-italics">Lobato</i></span> , <span class="ldml-cite">218 P.3d at
374</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-referenceseparator">;</span></span> whether state legislators had violated a constitutional prohibition against committing themselves to voting for or against <span class="ldml-entity">legislation</span> at caucus meetings, <span class="ldml-referencechain"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-refglobal="case:coloradocommoncausevbledsoe,810p2d,201,212colo1991lohr,j,concurringinpartanddissentinginpart" data-prop-ids="sentence_76324"><span class="ldml-refname"><i class="ldml-italics">Bledsoe</i></span> , <span class="ldml-cite">810 P.2d at 211</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-referenceseparator">;</span></span> whether the governor's item veto was unconstitutional because <span class="ldml-entity">he</span> had allegedly vetoed only part of an item, <span class="ldml-referencechain"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-refglobal="case:cologenassembvlamm,704p2d1371,1380colo1985hereinafterlammii" data-prop-ids="sentence_76324"><span class="ldml-refname"><i class="ldml-italics">Lamm</i></span> , <span class="ldml-cite">704 P.2d at 1378</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-referenceseparator">;</span></span> whether the Senate had properly taken the <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"ayes and noes"</span> when it passed <span class="ldml-entity">a bill</span>, <span class="ldml-referencechain"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-refglobal="case:inreinterrogatoriesofgovernorregardingcertainbillsoffifty–firstgenassembly,195colo198,214,578p2d200,2111978carrigan,j,dissenting" data-prop-ids="sentence_76324"><span class="ldml-refname"><i class="ldml-italics">In re Interrogatories of Governor Regarding Certain Bills of Fifty-First Gen. Assembly</i></span> , <span class="ldml-cite">195 Colo. 198
</span>, <span class="ldml-cite">578 P.2d 200
, 207</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-date">1978</span>)</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-referenceseparator">;</span></span> whether a law was void due to the General Assembly's alleged violation of <span class="ldml-entity">the state</span> <span class="ldml-entity">constitution</span>'s publication requirement for session laws, <span class="ldml-referencechain"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-refglobal="case:inreinterrogatoriesfromhouseofrepresentativesconcerningsenatebillno24,thirty-ninthgenassembly,127colo160,254p2d853,856–571953" data-prop-ids="sentence_76324"><span class="ldml-refname"><i class="ldml-italics">In re Interrogatories from House of Representatives Concerning Senate Bill No. 24, Thirty-Ninth Gen. Assembly</i></span> , <span class="ldml-cite">127 Colo. 160
</span>, <span class="ldml-cite">254 P.2d 853
, 856–57</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-date">1953</span>)</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-referenceseparator">;</span></span> whether a law was invalid because the Senate had unconstitutionally failed to record the vote in its journal, <span class="ldml-referencechain"><span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/889424291" data-vids="889424291" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_76324"><span class="ldml-refname"><i class="ldml-italics">People ex rel. Manville v. Leddy</i></span> , <span class="ldml-cite">53 Colo. 109
</span>, <span class="ldml-cite">123 P. 824
, 830</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-date">1912</span>)</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-referenceseparator">;</span></span> whether the House had failed to properly record a vote in its journal, <span class="ldml-referencechain"><span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/893659975" data-vids="893659975" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_76324"><span class="ldml-refname"><i class="ldml-italics">Bd. of Cnty. Comm'rs v. Strait</i></span> , <span class="ldml-cite">36 Colo. 137
</span>, <span class="ldml-cite">85 P. 178
, 180–81</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-date">1906</span>)</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-referenceseparator">;</span></span> whether <span class="ldml-entity">an amendment</span> was <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"substantial"</span> and thus needed to be printed, <span class="ldml-referencechain"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-refglobal="case:inrehousebillno25057p49,26colo234april22,1899" data-prop-ids="sentence_76324"><span class="ldml-refname"><i class="ldml-italics">In re House Bill No. 250</i></span> , <span class="ldml-cite">26 Colo. 234
</span>, <span class="ldml-cite">57 P. 49
, 50</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-date">1899</span>)</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-referenceseparator">;</span></span> and whether the House had the power to remove its speaker, <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/894783552" data-vids="894783552" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_76324"><span class="ldml-refname"><i class="ldml-italics">In re Speakership of the House of Representatives</i></span> , <span class="ldml-cite">15 Colo. 520
</span>, <span class="ldml-cite">25 P. 707
, 710</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-date">1891</span>)</span></a></span>.</span></p></div><div class="ldml-note ldml-note"><p data-paragraph-id="77914" class="ldml-paragraph "><sup class="ldml-superscript"></sup><a href="#note-ref-fr_2" class="ldml-notemarker" id="note-fr_2">2</a> <span data-paragraph-id="77914" data-sentence-id="77915" class="ldml-sentence">In <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/895257100" data-vids="895257100" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_77915"><span class="ldml-refname"><i class="ldml-italics">Gunn</i></span></a></span> , the <span class="ldml-entity">Mississippi Supreme Court</span> declined to stop the electronic speedreading of <span class="ldml-entity">bills</span>, although it reached that result by holding that challenges under Mississippi's reading clause are nonjusticiable given the <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_77915"><span class="ldml-cite">Mississippi Constitution</span></a></span>'s separation-of-powers doctrine, rather than through deference to <span class="ldml-entity"><span class="ldml-entity">the legislature</span>'s interpretation</span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="77914" data-sentence-id="78258" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/895257100" data-vids="895257100" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_77915"><span class="ldml-cite">210 So. 3d at 974</span></a></span>.</span></p></div></div></div></div> </div> </div>